.<,,."'t'i •"-"..ff,* ? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILA^rUff CIVIL REVISION N0.07 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: '.-y 8 SSlit PETITIONER: (APPLICANn VERSUS RESPONDENTS (NON APPLICANTS) 1 ...<^'?-'- .^1^'" ^>y5-'^ 2. t%"^u ^ Anil Kumar Lakhotia'*'- S/o Late Shri Purshottam Das Lakhotia, Aged abouf 55years, R/o Village- Karchua, Tehsil- Bemetara, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh Arun Kumar Jakhotia, S/o Late Shri Shrinivas Jakhotia, Aged about 48 years, R/o Hinganghat, Shivaji Ward, Wardha, Districf- Wardha, Maharastra Jagdish Kumar Jakhotia, S/o Late Shri Shrinivas Jakhotia, Aged about 48 years, R/o Hinganghat, Shivaji Ward, Wardha, District- Wardha, Maharastra Girdhar Jakhotia, S/o Late Shri Shrinivas Jakhotia, Aged about 48 years, R/o Hinganghat, Shivaji Ward. Wardha, District- Wardha. Maharastra Smt. Anuradfaa Rathi, W/o Shri Vij'ay Kumar Rathi, ; D/o Late Shri Shrinivas Jakhotia, R/o Gorakshan Marg, Near Bajaj Bunglow, Wardha, District- Wardha, Maharastra REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PRQCEDURE, 1908 4. w/" %1 ^3^:-|| HiG!lC;QVRT_QF CKHA1 AT B! ^il?^ Vi^'i'EB. >w r ^fis^-q sAPPUCANTl AnH Kumsr LaKrsotia Arun Kumar Jakhotia and others. Revlsion Petjtion under Section 115 of the Cod^^LCjyij Procgdurs, 1908 i 5'u'a ^, m'bh '..sse-fSi'"' ent Shri Shri Ankit Sinflha!, pefitioner/applicant. unsel for th. •^ ?^r* '^^^•1 ?>fi^^? !'n"^ ^il^^^i^ f}n'£'^\ iSS^i VaS 'EV ^^J'-ya iVisIarfSlB wv i sj Heard. 2. The instant revision is directed agalnst the order dated 03-03-2011 passed by District Judge, OWQ in MJC No.86/2010 whereby She petjtioner's appllcation under Sectlon 24 of the Code or' Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of fhe case are as under: Pursuant to a decree, which is connrmed by this Court in Second Appeal No.220/2009 vide its judgment and depres dated 30-04-2009, the executing Court delivered possession of the suit property to the decree hofder by Issuing possession warranttherefor.' 4, .' The case of the petitioner is: the trial Court issued {he warranf .of'possession assiffhing the nofice has been seryed upon the petitioner, whereas on the face of record, the ebove finding is incorreci. Due to above, the petitioner had iost a!f his raifh upon the trial Court. ^ %«'. LearneS District Judge based on the judgment of Jr Supreme Court in case of ofSihar vs. La! am reported in AtR SC 377, wherein it has been heid: >/ Kvr Where a statement appears in the judgment of a court that a particular thing happened or did not happen before it, it ought not ordinarily to be permitted to be challenged bya party unless both the parties to the litigation agree that the statement Is wrong, or the court itself admits that the statement is erroneous. The remedy of a party aggrieved is by way of review, dismissed the application. 5. Having heard iearned counsei for the petltioner and having perused the order ird^ugned, ! do not find any iltegality or perversity in the order passed by, iearned District Judge warranting interference of this Court under its revisionai jurisdiction. Therefore, the revision being devoid of substance Is 'iabie to be and is hereby dismissed. —-—- ' SdA N-K.Agarawal Judge BtlBigtea'iraiiia-s- !@S^1