IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. ? 1 ~^~ /2007 $i"g's Sench' PETITIONER Defendants 1. Bhikham Prasad aged about 55 years, S/'o Late Manbodh Gabel R/o Post and Tahsil Malkharoda Distt. Janjgir Champa 2. Smt< Mogra Bai Aged about 55 years, Widow of Late Rohit Prasad Gabel^ 3. Chandrashekar Gabel, aged about 30 years, S/o Rohit Prasad Gabel, Both R/o ViIIage Chote Seepat, Thana and Tahsil Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa 4. Bhuri Bai aged about 70 yea.rs, Widow of Nagm-ohan Gabel, 5, Babulat Gabel aged about 55 years, S/o Late Nagmohan Gabel ^6. Khageshwar Prasad Gabel, aged about 55 years, S/o.Late Nagmohan Gabel 7. Dopan Gabel aged about 45 years, S/o Late Nagrnoho.n Gabel 8A Naresh S/o Hemlal Gabel, 8B Hembai Widow of Hemlal Gabel 8C Ku. Kamlesh D/o Hemlal Gabel, 8A to 8C R/ o Indira Chow Pathripara, ^n ^.KorbaC.G. ,4 li^»NP' 8D Smt. Pramila Kumari Gabel D/ o ^^ Hemlal W/o Jitesh Kumar Gabel, R/o Post ^ P^G i^O'MO^^ Mukta Tahsil and Thana Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa ' 9; Rajkumar Gabel aged about 41 years, S/o Nagmohan Gabel, 10 Tilak Ram Gabel aged about 53 years S/o Koshal Prasad Gabel, 290 •j-s^--j-^\ 11. Mahendra Kumar Gabel aged about 50' years, S/o Kousha! Prasad Gabel All R/o Village Mukta Tahsil Malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa VERSUS RESPONDENT&.. Plaintiff y- f 5. Ramraj Singh aged about 48 years S/o Late Ganpat Singh Tikam Singh aged about 40 years, S/o late Ganpat Singh >3. NeeJamber Sing aged about 35 S/o Late Gahpat Singh 4, Smt. Ansuiya Bai aged about 80 years, W/o Ganpat Singh, Smt. Kamla Devi aged about 55 years, W/o La.ie Lal Bupal Bahadur Singh Smt. Shanti Devi aged about 80 years, W/o. Lal Udit Narayan Singh All R/o Village and Tahsil Malkharoda, Distt. Jangir- Champa 7. The State of Chhattisgarh, through CoUector, Distt Janjgir Champa CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OP THE CODE OF CfVIL PROCEDCTRE 6. ?HC—78 W^T'cET f^;?Nr ^Sff l3T¥^T^WF '3'sr "4!AjSd<4, •eE>tl1<-i4iG, [®l^ll^^< ^t^dS ^»Ni^"^F^""""'"""""'"""""""""^2007- ^T!^?!'1^^ (Ti?f3^^^ i^nw3:^r3?^T S.B. Hon'bie Shri Justice N.K.I 23.10.2009 Shri Parag Kotecha, Shri CD Sharma, Advo Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Acjvocate for applicant. bate for respondent No. 1 to 6. yanei Lawyer for State. With the consent ofthel The instant revision isi 12.06.2007, passed by Civilj 115-A/03, whereby and wherj appiicant under Order 7 Ruie ] the ground that the question framing issue and after recorcji Shri Kotecha; iearned submlts that the suit was within the knowiedge of non-j court ought to have been a| Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, and Per contra, Shri CD Sl for respondent No. 1 to 6 Is essentiaily a mixed questi<pn decided after framing issue ar parties in this regard, and th| disrnjssed the application ^rofeNh ^TR^f ^ f^t ^N^R ^ a^R- w^i Agarwa! Iparties, the matter is heard finally. directed against the order dated Judge, CIass i in Civii Sult No. r^under the appiication filed by the 111 of CPC has been dismissed on 4f iimitation has to be dedded after ing evidences of the partles. cjounsel appearing for the applicant b^rred by limitation. This fact i.s |appijcant, and therefore, the triai |owed the appilcation fjled under jsught to have dismissed the suit. |arma, iearned counsei appearing su^mits that the question of limjtation of law and fact snd has to be |d after recording evidences of the i^refore, the trial court has rightiy filec^ by the applicant. a£f{^iSU!»-^^f^t.;-<4fRi'^ff^.^-Wi S^T'^T'f^lN ^^n ^TT^I'^H^ t^^^ ^S^ ^TRf^T, ^tllws^ f^Tray ^...^J.!±... ^W^IT'^Tt^"""""" """"'"" """"^200 3— ^I^T acT^^ ( ysi^<sf<^) 1 have heard the perused the order impugned.j It is trite !aw that qu^stion mixed question of law and framing issue and after recor^ regard. Even otherwise, th^ no prejudice has been causep Therefore, in the consiMered court has not committed anyj order impugned. in the resuit, the merit. No order asto costs. coun{sels appearing for the parties and ahu ^mi<rt^ 'HH^ ^* 'fe^ 'tf^rs$R ^^tRR3T?^r of iimitation Is essentialiy a jfact and has to be declded after •^ing evidences ofthe parties in this right of the applicant. is intact and by passing the impugned order. opinion ofthis court, the tria! iliegality or infirmity in passing the revi^ion is dismissed being devoid of Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge