c f-- '^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR liliill®SQB"^ CIVIL REVISION No. ffi^ /2009 Petitioner Defendants ^.,s' /^w /-^ ../+< ^ / J '<y •?t.\ Smf. Prema Bai aged a bout 50 years,t8^/o Late Bhagwandas/R/o Badan Singh Mohalla,^ear Mission School, Manendragarh, Distt.Koriya, Smt Mateshwari, Singh aged about 27 years, W/o Lalman Singh Netam, R/o Surbhi Park Road, Ward No. 21 Manendragarh, Distt Koriya Dhan Singh aged about 58 years, S/o Harklal Singh, R/o Village Sonhat, Distt. Koriya Ranjit Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Ravel Singh, By Caste Sikh, R/o Near Old Guruduwara Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya ^ Versus Respondent 1. Vijay Kumar kesharwani, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Hajarilal Gupta, 2. Ashok Kumar Kesharwani, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Hajarilal Gupta Both R/o , Manendragarh Distt. Korea 3. Lalman Singh Netam Patwari, R/o Surbhi Park Road, Ward no. 21 Manendragarh, Distt. Korea, 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Koriya Distt. Baikunthpur CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HIGHCOURTOF AT BILASPUR CIVIL^EVISION No. 106/2009 PETITIONBRS Smt. Prema Bai and ofhers Versus RE^PONDENT Vijay Kumar Kesharwani and others ORDBR Postforl^ -3-2010 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge r; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B2LASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. 106/2009 Smt. Prema Bai and others Versus Vijay Kumar Keshanvani and others PETmONBRS DEFBNDANTS RJESPQNDENT SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT :- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, Advocate, with Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Advocate, non-applicant No. 1 and 2. None for ofher respondent No. 3. Shri O.D. Vaswani, Govt. Adv. for fhe State. ORDBR (1 r-3-2010) Per N.K. Aearwal, J 1. The instant revision is directed against fhe order dated 20- 11-2009 passed by fhe Additional District Judge, Manendragarh in Civil Suit No. 9-A/2009 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the defendants/applicants herein under Order 7 Rule ll(d) of C<P.C. has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-appMcant/plaintiff instituted a suit against the applicant seeking relief of declaration and permaaent injunction. The applicants by filing application under Order 17 Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C. raised objection regarding maintainability of the suit vide impugned order. Learned Court below has dismissed the said application. Hence fhis revision. 3. Shri Parag Kotecha, leamed counsel for the applicants would submit that the trial Court has rejected fhe applicant's application without considering the contents of the application preferred by the applicants as well as written argument and passed fhe order which is patently Ulegal and deserves to be set aside. He would further contend that a bare perusal of the plaint would reveal that fhe suit is barred under Sec. 257(g) of Laad Revenue Code; is time barred; reliefclaimed cannotbe granted. | 4. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that leamed Court below has rightiy dismissed the application. He would furfher contend that the plaintijB' has also claimed relief of permanent injunction and it is settled law fhat ttie part offhe plaint cannot be rejected. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. Without entering into the merits of the matter, suffice it to say that leamed torial Court Aias passed the order impugned without considering the contents of fhe application as weU as the written arguments submitted by the applicants tn their proper perspective. 7. In view of fhe above, fhe impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back for decision afresh in accordance wifh law on its own merit. 8. The observations, if any, made heretnabove, shall not be construed as opinion ofthe Court on merit. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge