”/appamwrf DEFENDANTS / .1. 5 W1 ‘ JUGRU S/O LATE SHRI UDAIRAM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. PERMANAND S/O SHRI JUGRU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. PRABHU, S/O SHRI JUGRU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. VERSUS M : J‘SPONDENTS 25‘ R f V1. 4 AINTIFFS .DANTS DE; §;:<A> X \\« DHANAU S/O SHRI JUGRU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. THE ABOVE. NAMED APPLICANTS ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE— AMLIPARA, TAHSIL KHAIRAGARH, DISTRICT RAJNANDGAON, (C.G.) HEMDHAR, S/O LATE SHRI UDAIRAM, SMT. RAMHIN BAI, D/O LATE SHRI UDAIRAM, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-BHATHAPARA, TAHSIL CHHUIKHADAN, DISTRICT RAJNANDGAON, (C.G.). SMT. JUGABAI, D/O LATE SHRI UDAIRAM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/o VILLAGE—KHAIRA, TAHSIL BALOD, DISTRICT DURG, (C.G.). IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION NO. M j OF 2004 AGEDABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-AMLIPARA, HSIL KHAIMGARH, ‘ DISTRICT RAJNANDGAON, (C.G.). CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SMT; SUKHWATI, D/O LATE SHRI UDAIRAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O SEC-6, ROAD NO. 36, BLOCK-5 BHILAI, DISTRICT DURG, (C.G.). HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR. No. 44 of 2004 t Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aqarwal. J.) Present :V Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the applicants. § Shri RM Solapurkar, Advocate for respondent No. 1a & 1b. None for other respondents. ‘ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12‘" day of March, 2010) The instant revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 3-B/2003. The brief facts of the case are t'hat, the non-applicants i.e. plaintiffs instituted a suit against the applicants/defendants for recovery of Rs. 21 ,000/- towards the damages. The applicants denied their liability for payment of said amount. The court below, based on appreciation of evidence led and submissions made in the case, dismissed the suit. There—against, an appeal preferred by the non- applicant/plaintiffs, was allowed and Rs. 12,960/- has been granted as damages in favour of non-applicant. Hence this I’SVISIOI’L Shri Rakesh Pandey,‘ learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the present revision is tiled by the applicants mainly on two grounds firstly; there is wrong mention /, A 1 K. Applicants Jugru & Others Deféndants Versus Respondents Smt. Ashok Bai & Others. Plaintiffs in the Khasra number in the compromise decree, due to that possession could not be handed over in time and secondly; the suit land and therefore, the court below has erred in awarding the damages against the applicants. On the other hand, Shri RM Solapurkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1a & 1b would submit that all the questions have already been raised by the applicants and the first‘appellate court, after appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective, passed the impugned decree. The findings are findingLof fact and‘are not open to challenge in the revision filed by the applicants. i have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the courts below. The court below, after appreciating the entire evidence and material placed on the record, has held that the non;applicant No. 1 & 2 are entitled for Rs. 12,960/— as damages. It is trite law that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this court can only interfere if the findings are based on no evidence or perverse. ln the instant case, the applicants have failed to demonstrate any such illegality/perversity and also failed to show that the order passed by the court below is based on no evidence. 10. In view of above, the revision being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed; No order asto costsLi/s,//" plaintiffs have never came forward for getting possession of the E‘ Sahu f’”§a/J T N. K. Agarwa‘ ‘ / Judge #