PAG,ENO.....(^.,..^ ^ Ijngl& Bench BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. fa;^' OF 2006 APPLICANTS •DEFENDANTS ...y ^^/· ^s/ ^*v •\n ^y; ^-' /:sy /^c^ • ^' ^co^ ^^:^ ^^-., ^y ?:^":-" ^ ov^^^ 1. 2. ?• 4. 5. ^" ^- 8. Palton, aged about 60 years; S/o. Fool Sing Sahu; Ganga Rani, aged about 40 years; S/o. Palton Sahu; Kunju Ram, aged about 37 years, S/o. Palton Sahu; Gautam, aged about 22 years; S/o. Palton Sahu; Smt. Bahura Bai, aged about 55 years, W/o. Palton Sahu [Wrongly shown D/o.] Khogin Bai, aged about 35 years; W/o. Ganga Ram Sahu; Smt. Kaushilya Bai, aged about 30 years; W/o. Kunju Ram Sahu. [Wrongly shown D/o.]; Smt. Rekha Bai, aged about 20 years; W/o. Gautam Sahu; Jagannath aged about 50 years; S/o. Pusau Ram Sahu; All R/o. Village Khorbana; l^^-: ..•—i^ . ..; ...^^»<^a- (:;^ fAGEMO Thana & Tahsil-Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT No.l:PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT No.2: DEPENDANT No.IO. l^, Siya Ram; aged about 40 years; S/o. Firanta Sahu; Farmer & R/o. Village-Khorbana; Tahana & Tahasil-Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Rajnandgaon; District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). w/-"' CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908. XI-HC-78 *11<4^11 9h*11Ch ^sf ^i^icn^, ^Tfl^4i<o, RcnK-iy _6^^J^%^<, ^200 ^ll^l ^l^cb (^i^^) W^T^Tf^lt^ PTSTT 3TI^T ^TW Fy' o^ J^ ^<TT^R ^f?cT 3:n^T '••'/-(<. Shri R.M. Jha jearned courlsel for the appiicants. This revision petition has l^ orcier dated 8.7.2006 passed application preferred by the p| amendment of the piaint and an< of the CPC for appointrnent of Cc|m"missioner the sult land, have been allowed. ^en flted by the defendants against the |)y iearned tria! Court by which the {aintiffs under Order. 6 Ruie 17 for bther applicErtion under Order 26 Rule 9 in respect of demarcation of Learned counsel forthe ap^licants Is not maintainat3'e in vievv of the| also the judgments of the Supren|ie Vs^_Rain,Chander Rai and otherls weil as in the case of Shjv _Shakt Swarai Deveiosers and others however, prays for return ofthe ce|rtifi AccordingJy, the revision p^| Registi'y to return the certified coj3- the counse! for the appiicants fi|. sarre. <^i^?<n<n-t w^rf^ te1c^ <[^<-<-i< ^3:rf^T3TT^T fairly concedes that this revision proviso to section 115 of the CPC and Court in the case of Surva Devi Ra| ^_reported in (20031 Vo!. 6 SCC 675 as li COOD. Houslna Socletv. Naflp_y_r_Vs^ reported in (2003) 6 SCC He, tified copy ofthe impugned order. tion'is dismissed as not malntajnabl^. 3v of the jmpugned order provided that [jrnishes an authenticated copy of the Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.