IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BXLASPUR(CHHATTISGARH) CIVIL REVISION SO, \^} OF 2003 c? n', •la'^ti^ "^ :'E^.:R; ?% 6%^ ii!Htl3 :;;318ffl5Si' APP^TCAt^TS ?BNDANTS ^ -.•''' ^CT"?' .^'.^y <<>*A:^' \/i' 1. smt. Archana,widow of late Sbrl Hanoj Jain, aged about 33 years, s 2./.-'"Palak Jain, son of late shri Manoj Jain, aged abottt 9 years. (Minor) througb-Guardian at applJ-cant no.l.mother Smfe. Archana,widow of shr-S. ManoJ Jaln,- both are residents of sasaholl, Tehsil-Tilda, DistEict-Raipur,(C.o.) ^ ^ VE R S U S RBSPONDENTS mia.xsa--^ sat. shanfe.t;-^S'ai(died) , through Pankaj Kumar.son o£ Bhanya Kumar Jain, aged about 21 years, resident o£ Newra Tehsil-Tilda.District-Ra-Lpur, (C,0.) ^f^ 2. state of Chhattisgarh '&«v»ou^i Cot(<?u-e^. j/aj'ls>iy> ^^'" MEMORANDUM OF CrV-TL REVISION TOiDER SEGTION 115 OF C.P.C.; "w^-'1 ted_j -TSE[ "41<41d's<, «Ti1y<ie, [sicii'ylj,< G .R-. r^o - / 3> ' 3n^T'^v ('^t^fi) ^ an^I^BlPinro ^WT 3(T^T s*i*( TODWflfe 311^1 S.B. Hon'ble Shri JusUce N.K. Atiarwat 11-03-2010 Shri Sunii Sahu, csunsel for Shri L.C. Das, counsel for n4n-applte»itNo.1. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govt. 4dvocate for nor^applicant No-2/State. Heard finally. Feeling aggrieved by the passed by Seventh Civil Judge, C N0.4&-A/2002 whereby and wtijereunder an preferred under Orcter 22 Rule 9 «tii<<ii'f<<i-<wroff ^ 'SSCT| <r^t(i< ^affimaii^t he appticants. order dated 06-01-2003 ass-11, Raipur in Civil Suit of the C.P.C. for setting aside the abetment and for substit^tion of name of applieant in place of deceasaj plaintiff Silnt. ShanU Bai has beai allowed, the instant revision has b^en preferred. Learned counsel for the ap^licants woutd submit that as per defendant's case, decease{i plaintiff Smt. Stenti Bai was having no right of title ovejr the suit property and, therefore, any will if executed by h^r in favour otf applicant is of no consequence. Therefore, (he order passed by the Court below allowing the non-^pplicant's appli^tion is without jurisdlction and de^rves to|be set aslde. Per contra, teamed counsejt ft>r nen-applicant No.1 would submit that learned Court Ijielow has rtghUy allowed the application oftho nnn-applinantlFinrl rightly allowed him to <mi^rsl*tgCTRre,"?Tii;<FTO—Fs/(47—2/2010—1,00,000. -r .ri»sil .-pa -•t an^qnft'iw gftsn^IiB^W Kw ^SE; •-'<l'4ld'4,.»Ti1*<<is, [s<<vii'yi< C R. ^o- ^L affl^T T^r (yii^yi) •renw^tetaii^i _ ^. qipiferiN nroff •?ftre? ^R5H iTsifimsii^T be substituted in place of deceasjed plaintiff Smt. Shantl Bai. He would further contend that defendant to challenge the geniji right of the person who has been| of the will and, therefore, no juris committed by the Court below. Having heard leam«l co< is always apen for the lineness of the will or the substituted on the strength lictional ill^ality has been having perused the order impt|gned, t do not find any jurisdlctlonal illegality in the order It is trite law that whilel jurisdiction, this Courtcannot r^ unless it is shown that the order perverse or is bas«lon no evideni In view of the above, sinci point out any such illegality or pen at, by the Court below, in the Court, the revision being devoid o|f merits is tiable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order ast nsel for ttie parti^ and assedbythe Courtbelow. exercising the revi^onal -appreciate the evidaice patently illegal, finding is ». the applteants could not erstty in the flnding arrived ionsidered oplnion of this costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge l^