t!:i: 1 H: ;j i ^ HIGHGOURTOFCHHATriSGARH.BILASPUR CivjlRevision No^0of2j004 APRUCANT/: (DefendantNo.1) NON-APPLICANTS/: (Plaintiffs) (DefendantNo.2) Srdt. yam\a Bai, Widovv of Meghnath Yadav, aged 65 years, R/o Vill. Chharbhata, Tah. & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Vereus 1. Smt. Sona Bai, Widow of Chhabi Lal Yadav 2. Mohan, S/o Late Chhabi LalYadav 3. Durga, S/o Late Chhabi Lal Yadav 4. Bhishhn, S/o Late Chhabi Lal YadaV Mentally Disabted, Through hjs Mofher & Guardian Smt. Sona Bai, Widow Qf ChhabiLal Yadav, All Residents of Kayasth Para,Ward No.5, Tah.& Distt. Durg (ChhattisgaiilT) 5. State of Chhattisgarh {Gjvilrevision unclerSectipn 115 oftheCodeofdvil Procedure} , Pregent: . ^•.:'''1'';111 'v " ',.' ''- •''"•1 .•:'••.'-'• Mr.VishnuKoshta,counselfortheapplicant. Mrs. RenuKochar, counselfcM' riQn-applicantsNo.1 to 4. Mr, Ajit Singh, PanelLawyerfcr tlie State/non-applicant No.5. Siriale Bench: Hon'hle Mr.T.P. Sharnia. J ORALORDER (25-8-2010) : 1. By this revision, fhe applicant has challenged legality & propriety of'fhe; order dated 19-2-2004 passed by tlie 4th Civil Judge Class-lj, Durg in Civil Suit No.85A/2003, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-11; has dismissed the application filed under.Order!? Rule 11 of the CPC, on behalf of the applicant, 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order • 1: impugned.: ' !: ..;', •-.^;\ ,'-.•-';'•,.;.'• ^ ',;• .' ,'. ' ^ ; •,' 3. Learned counsel fpr the applicant vehemently ^rgued that in revenue proGeeding Nazul Officer; Additional Collector, Durg; and Commissioner Durg have directed Chhabj Lal Yadav (since deceased)—hUsband'of' non-applieantNo^1tofilecivilsyit'fordeelaration,vkle6rdersdateatT2-t- s:^.^ l;i" 1) {. i' 'l ?*"" f x[ 84, 22-6-84 & 17-10-85, tiutChhabiLalYadav has not filed any^suit during his life time arid even after his death, non-applicants No;1 t^ have filed suit after eighteen years of sueh directipn and the same is hopelesslybarredbylimitatiOn.TheapplicanthEisfiledapplicationunder Orc|er7Rule 11 ofthe CPC fordismissal ofthesuit, buttbe Gourt below has dismissed the said apRlication and thereby failed to exercise the jurisdictionvestedonit. 4. Qn tMe other hand, leamed coynsel fbr non-applicarits No.1 to 4, vehemently opposed the revision ahd submjtted fhat the order impugned is unambiguous which reveals thatnon-applicants N0.1 to4 haye filed' suit for declaratidn of title 6n the basis of long possessibn and will deed whfch is not barred under the law 6f limitation and the Court helow has righttyrejected theapplicationfiled ontoehalf ofthe applicant. • 5. Qrder jmpugned reveats that while dismissing the applteation filect on behalf of the applicant, the Court beloW has not committed any illegality or hasfailed to exercise thejurisdiction vested on it. Consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Np order as '•Mocosts.':.. " 1111'1:-','^.:..1! cji ~ — T''. T.P. Sharma Judge | j'ii;: ' •S'. ^^i ':' ^L