IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.t CivURevision No. 2-^ of 2011 .iiSW.' 3 .^ ,^i APPLICANTS/ Defendants ..--3> .^.^^ ^^ ./<^' ^p-^ -^' y ^* ,'/a^ o y :1. Chhannulal, S/o Late Aatinaram Sahu, aged about - 48 years, 2. Mannulal, S/o Late Aatinaram Sahu, aged about 46 years, 3. Ashokram, S/o Late Aatinaram Sahu, aged about 44 years, 4. Naresh Kuinar, S/o Late Aatmaram Sahu, aged about 42 years, 5. Loknath, S/o Late Aatmaram Sahu, aged about 40 years, 6. Lokeshwar, S/o Late Aatmarain Sahu, aged about 38 years All R/o ViUage-Charbhatha, Post Office-Surpa, Tahsil- Patan, District-Durg (O.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS/ : 1. Plaintiff ^ "/- Defendants Smt. Geeta Bai, D/-o Late Aatniara, Sahu, aged about 51 years, address of motherly Village-Charbhatha, Post Office-Surpa, Tahsil-Patan, Distaict-Durg (C.G.) In-laws address Geeta Bai, W/o Manoharlal Sahu, aged about 51 years, R/o Village Devkot,, Post Of&ce-Kanwar, Tahsil-Gurur, District-Durg (C.G.) 2. Smt. Kunti Bai, Wd/6 Late Aattnarain Sahu, aged about 70 years, Cf) 3. Smt. Sushila Bai, D/o Late Aattnarain Sahu, aged about 49 years, Respondents no. 2 8& 3 both R/o through Parasram Sahu, ViUage-Mohla, Post Office- Manpur, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Smt. Aasha Bai Sahu, D/o Late Aatinaram Sahu, aged about 47 years, through Tularain Sahu, R/o VUlage- Dundera, P.O.-Utai, P.S.-Utai, Tahsil 8s District-Durg (C.G.) 5. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, OfEice of Collector Premises, Durg, TahsU 8s District-Durg (C.G.) CIVU^REVISIOILUND]^ SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HIGH COVRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 28 of2011 APPLICANTS Chhannulal & others Versus NON-APPLICANTS : Smt. Gseta Bai & others CTVIL REVISION LINDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CP/1L PROCEDUEE (SB: Hon'ble Mr^N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Prateek Shamia, Advocate for the applicants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11.03.2011) Heard on admission. 1. Legality and propriety ofthe order dated 18.01.2011, passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Patan, District Durg, in Civil Suit No. 8-A/09, whereby the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 ofCPC has been rejected, is under assail in the instant revision. 2. By way of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, a prayer was made by the applicant herein that the plaintiff is not daughter pf Atmaram and therefore she has no cause of action . to file a suit and therefore suit has to be dismissed under Order 7RulellofCPC. <" 3. The trial court, holding : the question raised by the applicant has to be decided based on evidence adduced by the parties, and suit cannot be rejected at this stage, dismissed the application filed by the applicant. 1 4. Having heard the counsel appearing for the applicant and having perused the order ifflpugned, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. The question whether or not plaintiff is daughter of Atmaram is a pure question of fact, has to be decided based on evidence adduced by the parties in this regard, and therefore, the application was misconceived and the trial eourt has rightly rejected the application ofapplicant. 5. For the reasons mentioned heremabove, the revision has no merit, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in iimine. Sahu Sd/- N.K.Agarawal Judge