IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATn:S6ARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Civil Revision No. &S^ of 2011 si—InRiOI iiS'iQ tfSSi APPLICANTS/ Defendants ,^ ^ /^y /^ /^ /. ^ // !' £/^ //' ^JA? £j ^^^ :1. (feolendji^Herenj, S/o Late Bos Herenj, a9e3about 55years (dead), through Heirs 6VJUY) ^nt.^i^-lerenj, Wd/o Late Rolendra Herenge, aged about 55 years, Ku. Irina Herenj, D/o Late Rolendra Herenge, aged about 26 years, (a) (b) (c) Rohit Herenj, S/o Late Rolendra Herenge, aged about 25 years, .'?S£S^ (d) / J^lerts)-lerenj, S/o Late Rolendra }e, aqed about 19 years,. ^- '^^7 -AT^~~<A^"'<^':e''^ 'in? (e) Ku. Anjali Herenj, C>/o Late Rolendra Herenge, aged about 19 years, All above are R/o Indira Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.6.) 2. Himeltan Herenj, S/o Late Bos Herenj (Dead) through legal heirs (a) Smt. Merry Herenj, Wd/o Late Himeltan He'renj, aged about 63 years, ,-» (b) Jeklin, S/o Late Himeltan Herenj, aged about 31 years, • (c) Rashmi, &/o Late Himeltan Herenj, a9ed about 29 years, (d) ^ Pronay, S/o Late Himeltan Herenj, aged about 26 years, Applicants no. 2(a) to 2(d) are R/o Indira Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Ku. Misi Akhtar Herenj, b/o Late Navel 1-lerenj, aged about 31 years, R/o u VERSUS RESPONDENT/ Plaintiff Indira Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Maneesh Kumar Thapa, S/o f-1eera Singh Thapa, aged about 25 years, R/o Indira Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, bistrict-Bilaspur (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA' Civil Revision No. 38 of201 1 Vl {v APPLICANTS Defendants RESPONDENT Plajiitiff ; Roleadra Herenj & others VERSU_S : Maneesh Kumar Thapa (CTVIL REVISION UNDER SEClIQNn5_QF_C?C) (SB: iIo.n'bleMr. NJ<,AgarwaL ,'U Present : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 04.04.2011) 1. Heard on admission . 2. The legality and propriety dforder dated 26.02.2011, passsd by the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No, 265-A,/06, whereby the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rj.ile 11 of CPC has been dismissed, is under assail in the iostant revision. 3. Brief facts of the case are : plaintiff preferred a civil suit for declaration of title and pennanent injunction over the suit land and "'i suit house bearing Khasra No. 678/5 admeasuring 0.31 'Acre, situated at Tarbahar, Indira Colony, Juna Bilaspur. ' 4. In the above suit, after completion 6f plaintiffs evidence, defendant moved an application ynder Ojrier 7 Rule 11 ofCPC for rejection of plaint iflter-alia on the ground : suit propertv- caimot be transferred by way of Will ofBobans Herenj ia his daughter's favour. Siiit is also bad as is-liot properly valued for the purpose of court fees and ^l // iurisdiction and for want of claiming consequentia! relief of Sahu possession. The trial court, having found: suit is at the verge of disposal, issues were already framed on the questions raised, dismissed the application Having heard the counsel appearing for the applicant and having perused the order impugned, since the issue raised appears to be mixed question of law in-fact, the trial court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the above application warranting interference ofthis court under revisionaljurisdiotion. For the reasons meafioned hereinabove, the revision desen'es to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/'- N.K-Agarawal judge