A??Li£$§N?3 }%§GH QGURT OF CHHATH3GARH, BILASPUR £?.Rev.. No: 3%!2991 Smt. Devki Jain, wlo DC. Jain aged about 65 year$ 2 Sm‘t. Sarla Jain Wm Sunil Jain, aged about 4'! years 3 Manoj Kumar Jam $lo D.C. Jain aged about 35 years, AH residence’of Nandai Chowk, £ Rajnandgaon, Chha‘disgarh VERSUS Indra Choudhary, s!o Hukumchand Choudhary. aged 34 years, Rio High School Road, Jagdaipur (CG) 2 Arun Choudhary, sfo Hukumchand Choudhary, aged 4D years, by oooUoaiion echco! Road, Advocate, Jégadaipur Rio (co) 1High 3 Uday Bhan Choudhary efo Hukumchand Choudhary, aged 35 years, Rio High Schooi road, Jagadalpur (CG) RE$PQNEENTS 4 Hukumchand Choudhary, sio Kanchhadiia! Choudhary, aged 7O years, R/o High School Road, J agdalpur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh through City Kotwali Jagadaipur 2 CRR 309/2001 £§pearan¢a Shri Sum! Sahu, Advocate for the applicants. § Shri Sushwbhit Singh, Advoca’ce for respondents 1 and 3. Shri RR. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for “the Statelrespondent 5. QRAL GRDER (M33201 1) SUMFL KUMAR SENHAJ. The ap‘p‘ricams are the witnesses in 821‘. No. 63;“. 995, pending in rm Court gr 41h Additional Sessions Judge (FT-C). Jagdaipur, District Bastar (CG). They have filed this petition chaiienging the Order dated 231200;, byiwhich, iheir application for recording evidence on commission, has been dismissed by ihe Sessions Court. Shri Sunii Sahu, learned counsel for the appiicants submits that how the situation has been changed and the applicants want to appear before the Sessions Court for recording their evidence and on this ground, their revision may be disposed of. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particulariy considering the orai prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are ready and willing to appear before the Sessions Court, i do not deem it appropriate to pass any order on merits. The revision petition, in light of the above prayer made by iearned counsei tor the applicants, therefore, is accordingly disposed of. \