c^^ ;N_THE HIGMCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIl/SPUR (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION N0. .I.V./ . . .03 . APPLICANTS PLAINTIFPS 1. Smt. Anar'fcall widow of Narayan prasadi Aged 60 yrs. .__ J. ^e\'0~<"<-- .^•^6&v>? .^^" ..^^••" ^ NON-APPLICANTS DEFENOAKTS jCX '«' Harishaaker, S/o» Narayan Prasadi Aged 30 years. Gauri ShanXer, S/o. Narayan Prasad. Aged 27 years. All R/o. Village Semra. Tahsil a.nd Distt. Bilaspur 1 Krishna Kumari) W/o, Shyam Sharan> Aged 37 years» R/o, Bharari, Tahsil and D-istt. Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) , .-^"'- 5. /"6. 1. Jankibai, Aged 32 years, W /o. Jugal Kishore.l R/o« Village Nawagaon, Tahsll and Distt, Bilaspur (C,G»). Kantl., Aged 24 year®.W/o» Suresh Rumar, R/o. Vlllage Ghoghara, Tahsil Nawagaon, Distt, Durg (Chhattilsgarh) . VE RS U S Ambika Devi, w/o. Vijay Kum; Tit'/srl, Aged 35 yeafs. Manish Kumar, Aged ls3 years, S/o« Iiate Vij ayKumy Niriorl Through s Guardian Motlisc . Atnbika Devi, Aged 36 year's,; Both R/o, Village sNu'a»( Tahsil and Dj-stt^ fat^a^|iri Iffl -f 2 3/, sfcate of Chhattisgarh, Through s collector Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), CIVIL REVI.3ION UNDER SECTION 115 OP CIVIXi PROCEDURE CODE 1908. tt,~^~i.-~..-.-—i— XI-HC-22 <"' '3'^ •<<i<(]fi<(, afll+i'is, ftdi'My 3:n^?r Tra^ 111CTI SblKh """"""""""""""7"""W^ •Iq^T""" ''2-^ sn^r^T h-u* aii^r shulcb ^f^T X, / "\ sti^i ^^iiw-tripi 18.06.a003 Shri Shree Kuniar Agarre-all Gupta, counsel for the applicaitts. Heard. . In view of the amended pro'l contaiaed in Section 115 of Co4 revision is obvioiislv not Diaiataiudl Undisputedly, a suit was f4ed which aa appUcation for ainendni^nt Court was of the opiaion fhat fh|e not be considered, as fhe luatter 'it |?isions (Proviso to sub-sectionl) ie of Civii Procedure,1908 this tble. by the present applicants in was laoved., The learaed trial amenduient application could ^ould be beyond its jurisdictioii. Accordia.gly, aa order for retunj enclosed application was pass^ appficants had nioved an. appticatfon havm.g rejected by the trial Cou^ ^ffled. Apart froin fhe fact fhat. t{ there could be no good grourtd for ehat the Court below has coiainit advised, the appUcaiifs m.ay take the lower Court aiid proceed furfhif V/itij. the aforesaid getition staiids disTiosed 'of. cti|^f1'ifll ^WV^ ^ ^S[ if^^l^l ^? arfitiH sii^i Sr. Counsel wifh Shri Anarid of. the plaint along with flie d. Aggrieved there\Tith., tbe for review of that order which t fhis vision petitiQn has been [le petition is not niaintauiable liuterference, as it caiiuot be said tini|tted a junsdictional en'or. If'so p3ack the plairit preseiited before ;r in accordaiice with law; ' obseryation aad direction, ttie ^revision Sd/- P.C NAIK Judge f1^ ^fo^