€ WSl£BEMCH BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ( CHHATTISGARAH ) Civil Revision No.^1 of2006 ^Pusauram Satnami, aged 79 years Sffii ofLate Guhra Satouami Resident ofVillage Kadar P.S. Bhatapara District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS (01) Ammudas, aged about 40 years ^ Son ofRam Alen Sataami Resident ofVillage Kadar P.S. Bhatapara District Raipur (C.G.) (02) Shrimaii TahsUdar Saheb Bhatapara DistrictRaipur(C.G.) (03) Chhattisagarah Shasan / State OfChatdsagarah ^" Through the Collector Petitioner f>Jlca'T(.A/.F4' \^..y ^^ v^>i..., ^^•-¥" <^'^~. ^•••" ^ ^ RAIPUR(C.G.) Respondents €><^Pe^Ja)d^ ^- REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 XI-HC-22 ^STT^T^I [^lich 3TI^T ^RT^TrfiTT C0 ~^^ ^ii^M^, ^WT?, 'fa^n^y _.......^:.R.:.....£<=f:..^. '^TO^T'^W^? ' • -".- " 17^ 200 C? 'i^^ST' W^T^'^TTW^1t^T 21.6.2006 Cjvil Revision No. 59/2006 ? thdt St|lt Shri Pawcrs Kesharwani, Heard on admission. This is a revision filed und^r Procedure against the order date^ 72-A/2006 by the Civii Jud9e otppSicatJon fiied under Section 8(| ho!d in respect of issue No, 7 decided eariier when the necessary permission under sub-s^c was filed earlier without such an Admittedly, in view of the CP.C^ now the position is settied orders would not be maintdnabSeJ the Act 46 of 1999 does not perm|t such an order, The reason is that either way would not have the other proceedings. The exercise case has been taken away by 1+ie 115 (1) C.P.C. by the said amendme^t coun^e! for the applicant, eff^ct ^N^Ffh ^TT^ff ^ 'fe"c2t ^N^ZR ^T 3^pq-^Ti'^T Section 115 of the- Code of CiviS 3.3.2006 passed 'm dvil suit No. ^lass-n, BhatGpara, whereby, an (sub-section 2) CP,C., proiying to the sdd issue is deemed to have was not dismissed for want of sejetion 2 of Section 80 C.P.C., which a^plication, has been dismissed. amendment in Section 115 of the that the civil revision against such Section 115 C.P.C, as amended by now a petition being filedagainst 1-he order of theHigh Court passed of finally dispose pf the suit or of revisional jurisdiction in such a substitution of proviso to Section Act46ofl999. 1- XI-HC-22 -^^ "^TR^PT, '^itW^, '^THy c'^- ^~s ^PMT^W^"""""""'"'"'^""**'*'*'****'^^ 'I^^ST' ^TT^r ^i R'li.4) 3Ti^T s^^i<=h T?ftn ^VbCt^ 3Ti^r ^RTT^R ^rft^ -L- In the present case, Lf the re\jision is albwed/it sha!! notfinaijy dispose of the suit rather it shaii pe^mitto continue the suit to reach fjndit^* In the facts and circumstanc^s of the case, this petition is not maintainabie and the ias dismiss^d at the motion itself. ^ .^ '^z?f^Fft?f 'W^ ^ fe^ TM^R ^^l^ma^T Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge [Tft^ y^