IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ^f AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. 52— /2010 APPLICANT / DEFENDANTNO. 4 ^ .->"y ^y^ ^--•"u'! ^ o ?.at <5- ^ A-I'•o Garima .Real Estate and Alight Limited, Through : Chairman, Banvari Lal Kushwaha S/o. Madhav Singh Kushwaha, aged about 30 years, R/o. 403, Saurabh Plaza, Temple of Gore, Near Suruchi Hotel, Gwalior, District : Gwalior (M.P.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1] Anil Kumar Singhaniya, S/o. Late Shankar Lal, aged about : 40 years,, R/o. Bamhnidih, Tahsil : Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). PLAINTIFF N0. 1 » ,2] Gauri Shankar Shrivash, S/o. Manbodh Shrivash, aged about : 32 years, R/o. Dhivra, Tahsit : Jaijaipur, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). PLAINTIFF N0. 2 3] Seema Devi Agrawal W/o. ' Vijay Kumar Agrawal, aged about : 30 years, R/o. Birra, Tahsil : Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). PLAINTIFF N0. 3 4] Asha Devi W/o. Sanjay Agrawal, aged about : 30 years, R/o. Katghora, Tahsil : Katghora, District : Korba (C.G.). PLAINTIFF N0. 4 5], Tulsi Ram Yadav S/o. Pirthi Ram, aged about : 66 years, DEFENDANT N0. 1 &] Radhe Yadav S/o. Pirfhi Yadav, aged about : 56 years, DEFENDANT N0. 2 7] Janak Ram S/o. Pirthi Yadav, /" aged about : 51 years, DEFENDANt N0. 3 Respondent no. 5 to 7 are by Caste : Yadav, R/o. Kosmanda, Tahsil : Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa <r ^ (C.G-). 8] Bed Kumari @ Amrit Kumari, D/o. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, aged about ; 54 years, DEFENDANT N0.5 91 Mahendra Pratap Singh S/o. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, aged about : 48 years, DEFENDANT N0. 6 10> ^ Bhuvan Pratap Singh S/o. Bhupendra Pratap Singh, aged about : 44 years, DEFENDANT N0. 7 .^ Respondent no. 8 to 10 are by Caste : Tawar (Schedule Tribe), R/o. Bargava, Tahsil : Marwahi, District : Bilaspur (C.G-). State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). DEFENDANT N0. 8 CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDU RE CODE " ;ir(BiBjige!«a''fi'K's: SII^WVI 1<-1 a^I 311^1 stili* ^rcf "4i<i!i<rpi,.®Tilyi(o,f^dl-y^ ^..4^........S.^-...-.^.^ sn^ff 1ra?r ('i'iid*1'^) I'Riiw^teran^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Jystice N.K, Aaarwal 23.04.2010 Shri Pushpendra Kumar P Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Heard on admission. . The legality and proprietai passed by the District Judge, Ji the instant revision. The non applicants/plaintiffe of declaratlon to declare their tit| comprislng Khasra No. 1456/|l described in the sale deed a^ permanent injunction restrainingj their possession. The applicant raised an 4 civit court. According to them u( Revenue Code (for short the C(j> is barred. The trial court found si|i regarding Khasra number in rev^ declaration of title over the su'rt ^ property has wrongly been des|( <ftl<llCTqh 'STFRTf ^f fs^ <F>f-^S< ^'affilHan^T |itel, Advocate for applicant. .awyer for the State. ^ of the order dated 06.03.2010, (njgir-Champa, isunder assail in instituted a suit claming retief |e over the suit land which infect 10 and 1^6/1 but incorrectly 1 Khasra No. 1456/8, and for the appllcant from interfering in ^bjection regarding jurisdiction of Wer Section 257 of the CG Land ^de'), the jurisdiction of dvil eourt "rt not for correcdion of entries >nue records, but is a title suit for roperty aml to hold description of ;ribed in the sale deed as such mwEta ^fl^yireR', .tMT-Hii'lk —FS/147—2/2B10 —1,00,000. ^S^^^^^ffS^^SSsy-^'^' -;^?9;*^^^ ^^Sa'S;:s'iSIS ::'"^-^^ ^^'^'^•^^ss •^'•.^M^^^^i .-;--..^-^^'su^'^ \^^^ys.y ssfW:'-S3isS"ss' ^ Ssif-s-^a ^^^•^(W^,..,^^^!^^^^^ '^;B^^^S^®^^i ss^iwy^y^ih^B^i.^s^a^ ^•'^-^f^ /e"^ ":' a&. '' 1 ^^ ^ TST •<fi<ii<n<i, ®iil<i<]c,fs<cii-Ll^< 3n^T'tPRi' (Tpf3«l^T) sn^rw R-ti* 'cTaFT 3Hi?T ^i*iiqi Sahu TBIIWdfta OT^I the civil court's jurisdfction is nrt issue agalnst the applieant. Having heard the counsd having perused the order impugni can be said that the suit is barred The su'rt is not filed for correction [appearing for the applicant and ^d, by no stretch of imagination it lunder Section 257 oftheCode. ^ entrfes in the revenue recorcte. 1 private parties and the plaintiffe It is inter-se dispute between the| had sought relief of declaration a^ainst the applicant/defendant 1 do not find any impugned passed by the trial substance Is liable to be and is costs. qif<^<l1l tTIT^f "^ fs^i •^t^K ^sifinan^i barred, declded the (»eliminary jurisc|ictional Blegaltty in the order coi<rt. The revision being devoid of tijereby dismissed. No order asto Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^swi^.^ssiss'ysssssaiys^^ „,„).•»—> l"Ba—'*W