HIGH COURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revjsion No. 06 of 2006 3t|^<t€^<|Uj 1BRk<ii<ft<iui |N—» 1. ^tqW Vlf ^FB"? l^^sE Iiw<? an^ 41 ^ 2. WKf ^ptf qcc[ ^•^ TTffK W^ 36 W5T, iihn^e^ stec'r ^^i ^t'it Pi4i<ft «nfA «n^. ^ ^, «<dt41«<MI< (tg^d <i<lit<tj<ii^ij^ t^nar wys aRT<t^q» ^Nt i'<i<^i*i g^piRr, ^c^ ^fftpR'ic'f w^ 48 W^ ^cFlt <^<^<tl^) Pl<ll^fi 4eit<trtl^11< d6«ftd ^fcft^T W5TR. ^RIT ^WI? ^9(FtQ) Civil Revisjon Under Section 1 15 of Code ofCivit Procedure. 1908 (SB: Hon'bteMr.N.K.Aaarwal.J.t Present : Shri Srikumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate wfth Shrt Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate for applicants. Shri Yashwant Tiwari, Advocate for respondent. ORALORDER (Passed on 7tn day ofJanuary, 2010) 1. Heard on M(C)P No. 64/06, applteation for condonsrtjon of delay in filjng the revision. 2. On due consideration the grounds taken in the applteation, t am satisfied that the counsel ft>r appellant is succeeded in explaining ttie delay caused jn fiHng this revision. Accordingly M(C)P No. 64/06 is altowed and delay caused in fiting the revision is hereby condoned. Also heard on admission. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2005, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar in Firet Civil Appeal No. 2-B/04, affirming the judgment and decree passed on 6. 13.08.2004 by Additional Civil Judge, Class II. Baloda Bazar in Civil Suit No. 5-B/01, the instant revision has been preferred by the applicants since the amount is less than Rs. 25,000/~. The brief facts of the caseare that, there was a dlspute between the parties with regard to batance payment towards the constructlon of house of applicants. A suft was fited by the respondent for its recovery. The same was decreed by the trial court. The said decree was also affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence this revision. By drawing attentjon of this court towards para 12 of the impugned order, the only submission made by Shri Agrawal, leamed senfor counsel appearjng for the applfoants is that the trial court has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the applteants for appointment of Commissioner for measurement of the work done by the respondent and the first appellate court has also wrongly afflrmed the aforesaid findings, therefore, the decree is bad and the matter deserves to be remitted back. I have heard the counsel appearing for the applteants and perused the order impugned. In para 12 of its judgment, the fist appetlate court has observed that the applicants got constructed balance portion of house from other persons. The appljcants themselves measured the work done by the respondent at the time of producing bilte to them. Now, tt is not possible to verify by directing spot inspection whteh work has not been executed by the respondent and therefore, the court below has rightly disallowed those applteatjons. There is no iota of doubt that after completion of the hbuse it would not be possibte for any Commissioner to verify which work has not been done by the '% 8. Sahu respondent. Moreover, the applicants themselves measured the work done by the respondent. In view of the above, the courts below have not committed any jurisdjctional illegaljty in dismtssing the applicant's application for spot inspection. No other grounds have been raised by the applicants counsel warranting interference of this court in concurrent flndings arrived at by both the courts below. The applicant failed to point out any jurisdlctional error/jllegality committed by both the courts below. In the result, the revision, being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dlsmjssed summarily. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge