\5 f ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision N0. (?7 /2006 Singla Bench Amar Shai S/o Bhondu Ram Bargah aged about 45 years, Occupation Service R/o Badgaon, Post Patarapali, Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) ^EVISIONER Defendant VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ y\plaintiffs ^y ~./^y ^ > .^ ^s-"" Sapuran Bargah S/o Late Bandhiya Bargah aged about 23 years, Occupation Agriculture, Ganga Ram Bargah S/o Late Bandhiya Bargah aged about 20 years, OccupationAgriculture, Both the R/o Janipani, Post Patarapali Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION U/S U5 OF C.P.C. 190'8 XI-HC-78 »ff*f^T^m^ viwq ^i^irt^, tP-^1^l<Ko, RrtW^ . ^R.K^J/^C FT^ '—•••••••••••• ^200 ^l*"^, 3H^5T?FTR^i<b ?CT3Ty^^Trf»^i4> ^. 31T^?T q?RP jtjclljcl^) ?^TTW? ;?ff^T 3TT^$T (pi^f<o<ilini^Y^l^i^ ^pyl+gi^ ^Sf^TWt^T 25-1-2006 Mr, Ashok KUJII^I' Shukla, couusel for the applicaiit, Heai'd on adnii^ Plamttff Raghu | of title and peiTaanent ii^ Amar Sai. Dziring pendericj |sion and M.(C.)P.No.66/2006. [Bargali filed a civil siiit for declaration [.junction agaitist appMcaiit/defendaiit |y oftlie suit, Raghu Bai'gali died, On his death, respondents Sa]|)uraii Bai'gah aiid Gaiiga Rara Bargah filed appMcation for bilagu|i.g legal representatives ia place of the deceased plahitifF Raghzi B4i'gali witfiui time, theit' applicatioii was allowed aiid theywere subs|tituted iii place ofRaghii Bargah, Later on, the appUcaiit/defeiidaii^ Amai' Sai filed aa application on 24-8- 2005 statiag that, daugljiter Phoolkunwar, who is flie legal representatiye of flie dec brought on record, tlierefoi Coiirt below held that, Sal have been brought ou recc] legal representatives on Phoolkunwai' did not appe| 'by tlie appUcaiit/ defendan^ Apparently, wtj legal representatives have suit is not liable to be aball mipugiied order does not ^ [eased Raghu Bargah, has not beeu |^, the suit has, been abated, Learaed |>uraii Bargali aiid Gaiiga Rain Bargah ^rd ui place of Raghu Bargah beuig his Uie basis of Will withni tnne aiid or and filc aiiy appUcation for brm.gin.g her on rccord, therefore, vi(ie unpugned order, tlie application filed Aniai' Sai has been disniissed, l.en after tlie deatli ofRaghu Bargali, his t^een brought on record witiiia tinie, tlie ed, Therefore, I ain ofthe view tliat, tlie .iiffer froin aiiy iniiiTaity, which requires ^ "O ' ..: •- t ^3 XI-HC-78 vjw| -"yi^llriil, tp-ai^-i^ic, Rkrtmy C.^. N^.^/c^ iTT^n^TT^ •••'•••••—•"•••—• ^ '2^— W^^T X^SV (^^^) W|,200 h^ w^$T?FTRVti<b f3Tf^^TaWEp ^ ?^!TW;Rf^TOT^9T iaterference bv this Court id the revision is Uable to be dl in limine, In the light ofal] disniissed, chl<<ic5>^w1441iiriT^ff^:& ^f^ix ^^(^+TW^^T its revisional jurisdiction, Therefore, smissed aad is accordiiigly disiiiissed ove order, M.(C.)P.No.66/2006 staads Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge