IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CIVIL REVISION No. VZS /2011 •^r'vlrv^t^^^ PETITIONERS (Defendant) 1. ^^: pSi^ 3. ^'^^y1^'"^^^'" ..^^v' ..^^ii't: ^^^" y^"^ RESPONDENT (Plaintiff) Ajit Singh S/o Mota Singh, aged about -71 years 2. Smt. Harjit Kaur W/o Ajit Singh, aged about - 53 years, Samarjrt Singh S/o Ajit Singh, aged about - 33 years, All R/o Raninivas Talkies Road, Raigarh, Tahsil & District - Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Smt. Savitri Devi Wd/o Late Baijnath Agrawal, aged about 68 years, R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh, Tahsil & District - Raigarh (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^-r__ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. 125 OF 2011 PETITIONERS Defendants RESPONDENT Plaintiff : Ajit Singh & others VERSUS : Smt. Savitri Devi REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTJON 115 OFTHE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (Sjnale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri K.A Ansari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Devesh Kela, Advocate for the applicants. ORALORDER (Passed on 08/11/2011) Heard on admission. 1. Instant revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2011, passed by the IVth Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 4-B/09 whereby and whereunder the applicant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are : plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit claiming relief of arrears of rent calculating for 3 years, prior to institution of suit. The applicants, by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC assailed the above order inter alia on the ground, suit is time barred and also cause of action has not been disclosed. The trial court, having found arrears of rent has been calculated for the period of 3 years, is within limjtation, rejected the application holding other questions raised by the applicant are matter of evidence and have to be decided after evidence is adduced in the case. .^" •-:^ v^^ 'y,,^ ^:"-SJSSS^-t^' £ ^ Shri KA Ansari, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the applicants submits the trial court has failed to see that there cannot be any adjustment of the decreetal amount against the rent as applteant No. 2 & 3 did not come in possession of the house on the basis of any agreement of tenancy either with late Baijnath Agrawal or the respondent. He would further submit the trial court has further failed to see even if the applicant No. 1 is treated as tenant, there cannot be any adjustment of rent payable by applicant No. 1 with the decree for return of advance amount advanced by all the applicants and the suit filed after 18 years of passing of decree by District Judge, Raigarh in civil suit No. 19- A/87, is also time barred. Having heard the counsel appearing for the apptteants and having perused the order impugned, 1 do not find any jurisdictional illegality in the judgment and decree impugned warranting interference of this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The arrears of rent has been claimed only for the period of 3 years prior to institution of suit which cannot be said to be beyond limitation. So far as other questions raised by the applicants is concerned, their rights have been protected by the trial court by observing, other questions are matter of evidence. For the forgoing reasons, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge