•^ €) Applicant (DefendantNo.l) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) CIVIL REVISON N0(^0 /2004 HI.niijn ^:n^w-:^ • Aalam Sai S/o Balakrana, Aged about 35 years, By-Caste, Rajwar, Occupation : AgricultoLirist, R/o Gorta, TahsU Lakhanpur, Dist : Surguja-(C.G.) Versus Non-Applicants No. 1 to 5 (Plaintiff) Formal Defendant ^\ .^' ^ A^. ^2. ^. !.> ^- / / / 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. /i ^- ..12. /' ^" 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ^ y- Smt.Maiimet D/o Somsai, aged about 70 years Shri Loknath S/o Butul, Aged about 60 years Shri Sukhram S/o Butul, Aged about 50 years Smt.Manbasiya W/o Butul, Aged about 50 years Shivnath S/o Butul, Aged about 50 years. Non-Applicants 1 to 5 are by case Rajwar, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o VUlage Gorta, Tahsil Lakhanpur, Dist: Surguja-(C.G.) ^ Adal Ram S/o Balak Ram, Aged about 37 years Kalam Sai S/o Balak Ram, Aged about 51 years SmtDhar Parheen W/o Balak Ram, Aged about 60 years. Smt.Bhitteen W/o Balak Ram, Aged about 55 years. Smt.Gudul D/o Balak Ram, Aged about 40 years Sapna Smt Borbi D/o Balak Ram, Aged about 38 years Kenapara SmtDilbaso Bai D/o Balak Ram, Aged about 35 years Puhputra Sukhen D/o Balak Ram, Aged about 36 years; Dhodi SmtMunni Bai D/o Balak Ram, Aged about 32 years Rakeli. SmtPatd Bai D/o Balak Ram, Aged about 36 years. SmtGuddi Bai D/o Balak Ram, Aged about 20 years. Smt-Rukhi D/o Alwa R/o Village Latori, Aged about 50 years Dist : Surguja-(C.G.) Shri Ram Singh S/o Ganga Ram, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Jodhpur, Dist: Surguja Smt.Sukhmaniya W/o Alwa, Aged about 60 years, R/o Village Harratikra. All are by caste Rajwar, By Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village, Gorta, Tahsil Lakhanpur, Dist: Surguja-(C.G-) (2) CFVIL REVISION U/S 115 OF THR CODE OF CTVIL^RQCEDURE 1908 ^L:^.. XI-HC.78 \d-pq »<1|<410<<,V^1<<1''IC, ROW^ ^IPTcOT^Tf^? ....L.r:.^;...^P./.^.^............ grr^ST^ra^ (yii3q«s) W?l200 an^^TOTRRW ^8yT3fl^^Tw*ii<p ^v^ g^rrw?^rf^r OT^^T £0.12.2008- Shri Rahul Mishra, Counsel Shri Rakesh Tiwari, Counsfe The matter is Iteted forl reyjsion. Learned counsel for the revision on the ground that the the proviso to the Section 115 C.| to file appropriate proceedings e4ailable Accordingly, the revisjon with liberty as prayed for. forthe applicant. ?1 for the respondents. hearing on maintainabjlity of the |applicant seeks to withdraw this pame is not mciintainable in vfew of [>.C. However, he prays for liberty to him under the law. |is dismissed as not maintainable ^i^iIc^41Ti ^i^rtT^fI^^l ^Ri^ix ^3lRt4l3ff^5T Sd/- DffiRENDRA MISHRA Judge ^c