^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAK»UR CIVIL RBVISKW N0. 89/2010 APPUCANT DEFENDAHT N0. 4 RBSPONDBNTS PIAINTWP DBEBMDABTS VBRBUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. Divya Bajaj, W/o Ashok Bajaj, Caste- Sindhi, aged about 37 years, R/o, Kera Road, iJanjgir, Tahsfl-Jaajpr, Dist. Jaajgir- Champa (C.G.) Raiacharaa, aged about 75 yeara, S/o Ramgulam, Caste-KsQaa, R/o. Kera Road, Janjgn-, Tahsil Janjgir, Dist. Jaajgir- Champa (C.G.) Baijnafti, S/o Ramcharan, aged atoout 46 years, R/o. Kera Road, Ja&jgir, Tahsfl Janjgtr, Dist Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Gopalrain, S/o Ramcharan, aged about 38 years, R/o. Kera Road, Jaajgir, Tahsil Jaajgir, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Mukesh Sharma, aged about 31 years, S/o DuUchaad Shanna, Caste-Brahman, R/o V.D. Mahaat, Vp-sayw Jaujgir, Tahsfl aad Dist Janjgir-Chaiapa (C.G.) Siat. Shakuntala Swamakar, aysd about 65 years, W/o Heeralal Swamakar, R/o Jarhabhata, Bflaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Stete of Ctihattisgarh, Through: tiiie Collector, Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir-Ghampa (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION U/S 11S OF THE CODB OF CaVIL PROCBOTOBE CODB. (SB :Hon*ble BBr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Ramakant Pandey, Advocate for the appUcant/petitioher. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent N0. 6. Respondents No. 1 to 5 not noticed. 7> ORAL- ORDEaft (Passedon 31/08/201(n 1. Heanl, 2. Order impi^ncd dated 7/7/2010 passed by Additlonal District Judge, Janjgir, District Jaujgtr-Champa ia Cwfl Suit No. 38-A/2009 whereby pctltioa imder Order 7 Rule •ir 11 of the Civfl Pnwedure Code ffled on befaalf of tbe petitioner has been disinissed on thc gnnind fhat respondents have prcfperly valued the suit perused. 3, Learaed couasel for fhe petitionar subaiats that at fhe tiaic of filing such petitioa he has not ffled the documcnts in support ofhis petition spcciatfy to show fhat itwas diverted land and pTemiuxa and rent haa been fixed by fhe Reveaue Authorily llierefore he secks to wiftidraw this civfl sevision with Uberty to file fhe detaB dociunent ia support of tojs claim fhat plaintifftsas undcr valued the siut pioperty aiid siut is not xnaintainable wtthout payiag thc reqiusitlon Court fee by anaking correct valuation, 4, Consequentty, civfl reviskxu is dmnusscd as withdrawn wlth aforesaid Uberty. However, Court te under obBgatioa to decide the valuation and Court fees reqitired for siut ia case the laad is diverted then platutiff is requjred to vahie his suit on fhe basis of 20 timcs of rcnt so SsceA by ttc aufhority and plaintiff has alao requind to aaend fhe suit relating to detnoUtion of permanent construction aad to valuc fhe suit also for fhe purpose ofdcmoUtion. 5. No order as to costs. ; Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge •^