^-^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION N0. %-- OF 2010 APPLICANTS DEFENDANTS ^' ^' ^^, s - 3.. 4. ^' 6.. 7. &- 'SBB Niresh Chandrakar, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Chhotan Chandrakar, R/o Village Borid, Post Rasan, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). Rudra Kuinar Chandrakar, aged about 49 years S/o Late Chhotan Lal Chandrakar, R/o Village Mohdi, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). Narendra Kumar Chandrakar, aged about 47 years S/o Late Chhotan Lal Chandrakar, R/o Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G-). Smt. Bhani Chandrakar, aged about 45 years, W/o Bhushan Lal Chandrakar (D/o Late Chhotan Lal Chandrakar), R/o Village Rasni, Post Rasni, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). Satyanarayan Chandrakar, aged about 43 years S/o Late Chhotan Lal Chandrakar, R/o Village Bordi, Janpad Panchayat Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). Ashwani Chandrakar, aged about 41 years S/o Late Chhotan Lal Chandrakar, through Satyanarayan Chandrakar, Janpad Panchayat Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). Shiv Kumar Chandrakar, aged about 39 years S/o Late Chhotan Lal Chandrakar, R/o Cement Plant Hirmi, Via . Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.). Jagdish Chandrakar, aged about 37 years S/o Late Chhotan Lal Chandrakar, R/o Village Borid, Post Rasni, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). ^ 9. Smt. Lata Chandrakar, aged about 35 years W/o Surendra • Chandrakar, R/o Village Rakhi, Post Bhathagaon, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.j. y- Smt. Laxmi Chandrakar, aged about 33 years W/o Dhanna Lal Chandrakar, R/o Village Khamhariya, Post Khamhariya, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ll^. Smt. Sarita W/o Ashok Chandrakar, R/o Village Arang, Post Aaranjila, District Raipur (C.G.). p- Smt. Urvashi W/o Khelan Chandrakar, R/o Village Sisdevri, Tahsil Kharora (Balodabazar), District Raipur (C.G.). 13,. Manoj S/o Hemlal Chandrakar, R/o Village Labhra, District Mahasamund (C.G.). J4. Hemlal Chandrakar R/o Village Labhra, District Mahasamund (C.G.). VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS: PLAINTIFFS 1. 2. 3. 4. Smt. Bhagwati Bai, aged about 75 years, Widow of Late Kunjlal Chandrakar, R/o Village Borid, Police Station and Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). Smt. Kumari Bai, aged about 23 years W^/o Shri Shravan Kumar Chandrakar, R/o Village Khouli, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). Srut. Kuleshwari, aged about 44 years W/o Shiv Kumar Chandrakar, R/o Village Paloud, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.j. Neelkanth Chandrakar S/o Late Jagatrain Chandrakar, aged about 51 years, R/o Village Borid, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur(C.G.j. T ^ 5^ Rajendra Kumar Chandrakar @ Rajesh Kumar Chandrakar, aged about 37 years, R/o Behind Gurudwara, Station Road Mahasamund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.). 6. State of Chhattisgarh, Collector Mahasamund, Mahasamund (C.G.). through District CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 QFTHE_CQDJE QILQiVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 —-^~ F>. [-HC-22 ;^" -Svt -tllilld'4, dTJI'M'l'i. (««'ll'M1< 'ira^ D^i-V 111MI 9tW<*i '""""[""""""Wi, 200 f^ST' 311^1^1 ft-ti.'h sncRT ^l( ^tiifl sn^i'^iisgT'dfe cbl'Ll[<v14l'1 'RR^f ^ 1^T3t <f^l<riK ^'SlPBfSII^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaarwal 11.1.2010 Shri HS Patel, Advocate Shri Sameer Behar, Pane Heard on admission. f()r the appllcants. Lawyer for State. The instant revision is <|lirected against the order dated 07.09.2009, passed by the lllrd L in Civil Suit No. 47-A/06, wherelj>y and whereunder the applicatlon preferred by the applicants un<j been rejected. By filing an application ur| applicants raised a plea before| property has already been therefore, the sult is liable to be application on the ground that tl ^ivil JudgeClass l,Mahasamund, er Order 7 Rute 1 1 of CPC has •fder Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the the trial court that since the suit F(artitioned between the parties, tfismissed as not maintainable. The trial court vide imp^gned order dismissed the said e issue has already been framed on the said question raised by l|he applicants and the same shall be considered after recording evfdence in the case. Since the question, which the applicants are raising by way of application under Order 7 Rple 11 of CPC has already been raised by them in their written s(alEment; frie specffic issue tas been 1 [tr^ ^fof^ iI-HC-22 T°? •-'ll'Mlcl'1!, sfll'y'i®,[sicii'yy sni?r 'W^K €^ WW(T 'ibll'h •M 200 fq^ff' 3n^T^iT R-fi.i* sn^i shl-iict) tifsa fiahi] 311^1'S^lIWdf??! framed whictys-pending considferation before the trial court and SL^l certairf^the trial court will recorcf recording evidences of the parti^s on its own merits, therefore, at this stage, the trial court has r jurisdictional illegality/infirmity in warrantlng interference of this co|jrt. The revision, being devoic| is hereby dismissed summarily. chN[(n*I1i *lW(flf'^ fssril <f^<^R. ^srfs^nan^i its finding on the said issue after ghtly rejected the application of appticants. The applicants ha^e utterly failed to pointout any he order passed by the trial court of substance is liable to be and Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Jydge