IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.} CIVIL REVISION N0. 3 L! OF 2011 APPLICANT: y .-• ..•"y /' ^ /"..•(~;"- ^'/^ y^".^/' A» ^'. .-•^ / •''^0 ^^'<v :<?^y^ NON-APPLICANTS: 1 2. 3. 4. ^( J • Basmatiya @ Basdeihin, v<»ife of Kholsai, aged about 62 years,Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Agustpur, Police Station and Tahsil Surajpur, Distrirt Surguja (C.G.) Present address R/o Village Khopa, Police Statten Jainagar, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C.G.) •(Defendant No.l) VERSUS Ramprasad @ Sipahi, Adopted son oflate Besahu Rajwar, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Khopa, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil bhaiyathan, District Sarguja (C.G.) -—(Plaintiff) Hariprasad, S/o late Baran Rajwar, aged about 53 years, —-(DefendantNo. 2) Shiv Prasad, S/o late Baran Rajwar, aged about 57 years, ——(Defendant No. 3) Bhaiya Lal, S/o late Baran Rajwar,aged about 55 years, ——(DefendantNo. 4) Defendant no. 2 to 4 are R/o Village Khopa, PoHce Statjon Jainagar, Tahsil bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C.G.) Heeradhan, S/o late Janki Rajwar, aged about 72 years, caste Rajwar, R/o Village Khopa, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C.G.) ——(Defendant No.5) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: ,the Collector, Surguja Ambikapur(C.G.) ——(Defendant No.6) '^y—J^> *^^V)'iire p ......,.rf» 7 CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (S) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil RevisionNo. 34 of2011 APPLICANT : Basmatiya @ Basdeihin VERSUS NON-APPLICANT : Ramprasad @ Sipahi & others (CrVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC) fSB: Hon'Me Mr. AT.K. Agarwal. J.) Present : Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the'applicant. Shri Vinod Tekani, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER CPassedon 28.03.2011) 1. Heard on admission. 2. The legality and propriety oforder dated 02.02.2011, passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Surajpur, Surguja, in Civi! SuitNo. 194- A/09, is under assail in the instant revision. 3. Facts in brief are : applicant herein, by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, raised an objection regarding maintainability oftHe suit on the ground that the document basssd on which suit has been filed is unregistered, not admissible under Section 17 ofthe Registratioa Act, and also looking to' the date of document i.e. 28.04.1996 suit is time barred. 4. The trial court held : the point raised by the applicant has to be decided after recording evidence ofboth The parties and after faming issues therefor, and dismissed the application. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the order impugned. - ,. \ • •^.'^ ^"^•.^.^.^ ^^ ^?sy ^w^ ^ Sahu 6. The suit has to be decided after taking into consideration the entire 7. •s> plaint averment and not only the document which is, according to applicant, is unregistered and not admissible under Section 17 ofthe Registration Act. The issue appears to be mixed question oflaw in- fact, has to be decided after recording evidence ofboth the parties in accordance with law. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the ~«^ order passed by the appellate court warranting iaterference of this court under revisional jurisdiction. The revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/'- N.K.Agarawal 3ud&e