^:^. ^T...^'^ ^::^^p&-""" ^^•^- ^ .^.••'"" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH .. ^^ m CIVIL REVISION No..!(, ©^ /2006 APPLICANT / ^ ^N APPLICANT 1 "— . ^ <y .Gorelal Sawarkar S/o- Late Fagu Lal Sawarkar Aged about 47 years, R/0- Assistatm* Office 3, Tahsil Office Dongargarh, Permanent R/o- Ward no. 3 Chikhali Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS Estate Officer South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) South Eastern Railway Through:- Assistant Engineer South Eastern Railway, Dongargarh Tahsil Dongargarh Distt.- Rajnandgaon \: C1VIL REVISIO^N UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PRQCEDURE. ^\^ F- T XI-HG—78 ."Tii^i^ •n' m\- ^WH^fl ^Nidb 7^r ^s^Kn^, ^t{1^4Ko, f®i<ni^^< ,.C....^.M^.l^. ^r^i TR^' (yji^c^r) ^l^T "S^. Hon'bS6 Shri Justice N,K,Ag4Irwal isspance 10-11-2009 Shri Anoop Majumdar. coyns^l Smt. Naushina Aii, counsel fo| Heard on admission. Feeling aggn'eved bythe ord| First Addltional Dlstrict Judge, No. 10/1999, She instant revision is ft^ Facts briefly stated as under: The Estate Officer sent a sho^l of eviction to the applicant. After iss^anc evictton order has been passed. Th< preferred by the applicant before Rajnandgaon, admittedly which Wc hence thls revision. Learned counsel for the were not served on the appiicant by| cannot be said that the appeai prefe|-red aiso submlts that as per provisions the Pubiic Premises (Eviction of Una< (for short 'the Act'), even witho^t condonatjon of deiay, the learnedj condoned the delay. Having heard learned couns^ perused the order impugned, in the this revision has no merit for the follovi for the appiicant. the non-appiicants. ar dated 08-09-2005 passed by Rajrjiandgaon in Misc. CIvil Appeal il4d. •^Frf^R^T'Wl^f ^ ^zf <^T^K ^^t^^T^T cause notice against the order of show cause notice, an |re against, an appeai has been |the AdditionaS District Judge, (s dismissed as time barred, applic^nt wouid submit that summons 1 the Estate Officer, therefore, jt by hlm is time barred. He pontained in Sectjon 9(2)(a) of ^thorized Occupants) Act, 1971 filing any applicatJon for Appellat® Court couid have for the appjicant and havlng cjsnsidered opinion ofthiis Court, ^lng reasons: ^ ^ T .XI-HG—78 TaEr ^ti^id^, ^ti1<H4i<o, f^Tray ..C.:.R^.o.J..Li ^^^ ((lGli^<^) '^T.ft^i^ ^^i'iT^W J Kvr \;- — 'X- - nXs~per~Tinaing recoraea iTTg order, the notice was served upon th} strictiy in terms of Section 4(3) of thj Court whije rejecting the appeai recof final argumente are over, the appeiiafrit condonation of dejay nor has delay. in the resuit, sjnce the appeJI; jurisdlctionai illegality in passing th^ fails and is hereby clismissed. assidned ara 7 of the appeliate Court's e applicant by the Estate Officer e Ac t and further the appeliate ^ded a categorical findlng that ti!J did not fiie any application for any satisfactor/ cause for ®hl^i<ri4i^'^TR^I ^ fe^ ipsi^K ^^pq^^T :e Court has not committed any impugned order, the revision Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^