/ 4N- S‘mgia Eganéii‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, CIVIL REVISION N0. j g)’ /2005. - ) APPLICANT/: Smt. Fatema Begam, JDEFENDANT Wd/o Late Mohammad f Ibrahim ( W/o Sikander Khan Wrongly Written by Non—applicants in the Plaint), Aged about 54 years, IUO Lalpur, Baghbahara, Tehsil & District Mahasamund, (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS / l. Idrish S/o Late Mohammad, PtAINTIFFs Ibrahim, Aged about 50 years, 2. Shabbir S/o Late Mohammad, k,- / Ibrahim, Aged about 47 years, Jx‘wf Haw»? 3. S/o Late Mohammad, a/ Ibrahim Aged about 45 years, 4. Wahid si/o Late Mohammad, Ibrahim, Aged about 43 years, No-applicant No.1, 3 & 4 R/o Khavabada, Nanidaman, Post, Thana & District Daman, Union Territory of Daman & Dew, India PIN Code 296310 Non-applicant N0. 2, Occupation Business, Present Address R/o Main Road, Saraipali, Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). Original R/o Khavabada, ‘ Nanidaman, Post, Thana & District Daman, Union Territory of Daman & Dew, India PIN Code 296 3 10 M, REVISION [INDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. @ V ¢ M; 17.04.2006 ” . 7, k , _. ‘ 7 *Shri Safyendra Sahu counsel fovr fhe applican'r/ de'fehdan? I Shm ManOJ ParanJape cownsel for The non—apphcan‘rs / Iplam‘hffs Learned counsa‘ for bofh ‘H'w parties pmy to hedr fhe maf‘rer and 1’0 deCIde IT fmally ‘ Considered Ailowed Learned counsel for bofh The par‘ries are heard finally. r Non—applican‘rs / plain‘riffs fi d a sui+ for declara‘rion inferQa/ia ' on fhe ground ‘Yha* adplkanf/ de endan‘lf is not 'l’heJegaHy wedded wifelof late Ibrahim Khan, fheref re, if be declared fha‘r They alone re 1'he .Tifle holders of The property. ‘Appli’can‘r filed an \ application under Order VII Rule 1 of The CPC for dismissal of The )No.33-A/9'8 Ibrahim Khan vs suif sfqfing 'Tha'l’ in earlier su i Purushof‘fam, The Cour? had alrea y decided Tha‘l' arpplicanf and non— l I applican‘l’s are joinf owners of‘The 1" proper'ry. a r i ? principle of res-judica‘l'a is no‘l affracfed To line ins‘fanf caseas in llier suit; parfies were differenf and The dispuTe was also differ Therefore; vide impugned order , daTed 22 11 2005 dismissed The ap licaTIon AdmITTedly deceased Ib him Khan filed a suiT againsT PurushoTTam for evicTion. During endegoyr'of The suiT, Ibrahim Khan Learned Cour‘r. below L held a s H e ’ LHC-z‘z v r ;,¢,-, _ ‘ 7 _L\,.h g “ X ’ 'A L, f the CPC fhe suit wds noT liable immi‘r any err'bi} by passing fine my inferfei‘encé by This Cogr‘r. s be dismissed summarily, andli’s mmmm f} ,. fherefore) undgr Order VIE Ruiz 11 o f0 be dismissed. V Learned trial Coufft did not a impugnedbrder‘ Thd'r Vma‘y call for c Therefore: The revision is liab!e to dismissed accordingly. ‘ordea ‘M.(c.)P.Nb.428/2Goe In The iighf of abo’Veg IA Nos.55/2006 & 994/2006é1and dispose/it'd. i Vijay Kumar Shrivastavat L Judge Sd/- WW \ ,