^.if Bn'" IN THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR .^^. •r .^yv^^f '^ *\ "^. /;11 <!»'.,:.i':=-"""^, Civil Revision No. 'of2003 1. SMT. GODAWARI BAI, -^ WEDOW OF LATE SATYANARAYAN PORWAL (MAHESHWARI) 2..SHRI MANOJ ^•' MAHESHWARI SON OF LATE SATYANARAYAN PORWAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 3. SANJAY MAHESWARI, SON OF LATE SATYANARAYAN PORWAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. NOS.l TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF GANJLINE, RAJNANDGAON [C.G.] -'SMT. SARLA MAHESHWARI WIDOW OP LATE NANDKISHORE PARWAL (MAHESWARI) AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 2./"SNEHA MAHESWARI D/0 LATE NANDKISHORE MAHESHWARI AGED ABOUT10 YEARS. N0.1 & 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF 45- VIKAS NAGAR, LAKHOLI, RA/JNANDGAON,[C.G.] PRATEEK MAHESWARJ, SON OF LATE SHRI NANDKISHORE MAHESWARI, AGED ABOUT 13 . YEARS RESIDENT OF GANJLINE, RAJNANDGAON [C.G.] THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF IMDIA, MAIN BRANCH, KAMTffl LINE, RAJNANDGAON [C.G.] ' . VERSUS ^VL. q^-'v^ .>y.v.^t>«*' ^^ y APPL.1CANT rslON-APPLICANT^ S4: REVISION PETITIONUNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 WR1T tR<W» "3^ •<<i<iici<4, (s-nl-i-i'is, [sicii'My ; ., . €^^^/^ ^........^^.........................•..^^^Q sn^T'W^ <yiTy^) aii^iwi fe4 wnairt'BBww wiiw^iifen aii^i =(ii<<i<?i<il"f 'wraf ^f Is^ttfSRgR ^ sifiis aii^f Shri B.P. Shamia-wifh applicant. Shri Anoop Majumdar, | Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Srj Adv. for fhe respondent No. Heard onadmission. The uistant revision is( 19-7-2002 wherebv aad wh( fhe appUcant under Order Shri Kshitij Sharma, Adv. fbr the Adv. for respondents No. 1 & 2. Adv. wifb. Shri Rakesh Thakw, dtrected against tlie order da'ted •&t-"L ;psunder fhei application illed by 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been disposed of by ihe trial Coiir|; wifh a direction to tlie applicant to file his written statemenl aiid raise the same grounds in that Since fhe instaat revis.|on is peiiding stnce 2003 and as per the submission made by Shri Tiwari, leanied Sr. Counsel, that (he applicant has alre^dy filed liis writteii statement. ui tlie case and flie matter is Qxed for evidence in this montli, I do not fiad any merit ' tn the revisioii and therefore. tlie revision is dismissed. Howefer it is du'ected that the suit be decided expeditiously &s ear^y as possible preferably -,vitmn a penoa 01 sui monuis. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge ^^ K^"I>?i^ ;TF'Rf^!H—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. (N11 f-El;IIII