•^\ ^.<K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR 1. /2. y 3. y CIVILREVISION N0. }o) OF 2003 SMT. VIMAL SHARMA WIFE OF MANOJ SHARMA AGED 40 YEARS SMT. USHA SHARMA WIFE OF DINESH KUMAR SHARMA VINOD KUMAR SHARMA (MINOR), THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER, RAJENDRA SON OF LAXMIKANT SHARMA SANDEEP SHARMA (MINOR), THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA SON OF KAILASH CHAND SHARMA .^^" ••»et"J)^V^f^ ...^'•"><"&^^.^' ^^^- ALL RESIDENTS BUDHAPARA, RAIPUR. OF ^FPLICANTS/ PLAINTIFFS VERSUS ^ x JOINT DIRECTOR, NAGAR TATHA GRAM NIVESH, DISTMCT OFFICE, RAIPUR. STATE OF C.G. THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, RAIPUR. NON- APPLICANTS/ DEFENDANTS REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Being aggrieved by the or^et of VI th Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur in Case No.49T-A/2002 between Smt. Vimal ShaKma and others versus Joint Dirg^tbr and other dtd. 07^01.2003 clarifying the orderdtd.TO. 10.2002 and directing the payment ofcourt fee else proeeeding under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the ^ 1 •' XI-HC-22 ^i*i8^g $hNT^ 3^' '<lNI<vt<4, ^Tfl^^tf, (cl^iy^ jd ^I^^Tq^ ,.C^...j[9j/o2>|,W3[ 200 sn^r^r fN^^n^T $b^icb<if^a %.. "~<^ ^ .^" .^,. ^^ V; ^ ^ ^' 3nNT?iiilR^(N CM^?<n4i-i ^i*4<rri'^te^t<Ri^ii< ^^rf^T3TI^T 23/03/2005 Shri B. P.Sharma, counsel foi Shri Satish Gupta, Dy. G.A. 1 Heard-. The applicants have preferr^ the applicants. (or the State. d this revision against the impugned order by which the applicants are cjalled upon by the .trial Court to clarify the basis of valuation of the suit ^ithin 15 days failing which necessary order will be passed, Learned counsel for the ap|plicants submits that in view of the proviso to Section 115 of CPC an<| in view of the law laid down by the HonUe Apex Court in the case p[ Surya Devi Rai Vs. Ram Chander Raiand Others re^prtedirLf2Q(3l3) Vol. 6. SCC 67S as well as in the case of Shiv Shcikti Cocw. Hokisina Societsi. Nafmur Vs. Swarci.f Develoffers and Others reportedB in (200316 SCC 659, the revision is ithdraw the same with liberty to file ^nder the law. revision is dismissed with liberty as dicants further prays that the certified .e revision ,petition be retumed on not maintainable and seeks to w| appropriate proceedings available i{ Prayer is allowed and the prayed for. Learned counsel for the ap^ copy of order annexed with tt( applicants fumishing attested pho|fcocopy of the same. Office is directed tb retum t|he certified copy of the impugned order annexed with the revision petitio^i to the counsel for the applicants on his fumishing attested copy of the| Certified copy as per rule. | Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge same. (^ft^^fa^) A