CD ^ffl-ST: ^m^T ^-I^HI'-l'jll'4 '^3^T "qiqidq yall^lid i?07TO 7. ^" 't:[;f8'Siu|cr>aif''iui y(aciit<<iui \ ^itW-"" ; ^^^ f(Sy' :.^) "::-f -./„ r,i" ^o ^s '^ 'Hf^r ^(X|MC|I<?I'I|U| Csin-' ^IB- ^l - ii j iuy'^ czroyro^o- -SJ-/ 2011 01. •aft '{I+I'M^M STT^ 55 STTO ^ft sTT^rRH ^^f\ 02. •ift ^OT'T srrg 53 3TTO T1I^';I1 'g4q'?Tl 03. ^\ ^^T STTg 50 ^f ~^\^m ^cRft Wft f^lcTR'rr 'iTFT •ct^^cil ^?01fR^?T fuTcfT Rdl'H^ 01. ^^W STT^ 55 ^ STTO SS\ W-T^ •<j,4c|'^Tl 02. 'TT^t 7m' arrg 50 c^ 3TTO W^ ^g4cRft 03. yS\>lW STTg 45 cf^ w^.^ ^N?Tr wft ftciR'rr ITTFT ^cti^di ci?ocr A Rciit'i^ o414^1'i q'T^eFT SRffcT ETKT 115 STTOTO^fo ^TTqra^r^t?FT ^ft?T oij|c|^|N; -tji^i&tl^i cpf-2 Rdl'H^i ETRT SJO'ETRO^O-211-31/09 T^ 3Fq fER^ ^TT ^!1^'1<1'!?4 ^ ST.^ ^ TTT^T srr^r R-I 26.02.2011 ^fr ^026.3.11 h (S) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR CiviLRevision No. 37 of201_l APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS : Shri Ramswaroop & others VERSUS Uderam & others (CTVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF dVIL PROCBDURE) (8B: Hon'Me Mi^ N.K. Agarwal. J.) Present : Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the applicants. ORAL ORDER (Pas^d on 08.04J011) Heard on admission. 2. Legalityandproprietyoforderd8ted26.022011,passedbytheIIIrd Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur, in Civil SuitNo. 211-A/09, whereby and whereunder the trial court has rejected the apphcant's application filed under Section 11 read with Order 7 Rule 11 of ^ CPC, is under asssal in the instant revision. i •f 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff ingtituted a suit claiming relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. According to plaintiffs, plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit property. Defendante raised a preliminary objection by fitiog application under Section 11 read with Order 7 Rule 1 1 ofCPC inter-alia on the <• grounds: as per decision ofcivil suitNo. 70-A/06 plamtif& are not in possession of the suit property, suit filed is barred on the principles of res-judicata, relief of permanent injunction claimed r..A "^l cS) without claming relief of possession thus suit is also barred under Section 38 ofthe Specific ReliefAct. 4. The trial court, vide order impugned, dismissed the said application on the ground the question ofres-judicata and maintainabaity ofsuit wilhout claming relief of possession under Sectioa 38 of Specifie Relief Act, which is based on the decisitm of previous suit, is ' essentially a mixed questions of law and fact, has to be decided after fi-aming issue in this regard. 5. I have heard tiie couasel appearing for the applicants and perused the order impugned. 6. Since the issue raised mainly appeans to be rwxed question of law and fact, therefore, trial court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application leaving open the issue to be decid^ during trial based on pleadings ofthe parties and evidence adduced thereupon. '"/. . In view ofabove, I do not find any jurisdictional illegality in the order passed by the court below leadiog to miscamage ofjustice warranting interference ofthis court under itsrevisioHaljurisdiction. 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revisipn deserves to be andis hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sahu 50!- ^^ "".iud8e r