r IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR d^v^ CHHATTISGARH CRIMXHAL REVISION N0. /9 /2010 APPLICANTS (Defendant No.l, 2, 4 and 5) ^- ^- ••^- ,5S?^y. %° %-^ oy\ NON-APPLICANT Plaintiff Defendant No.3 1. Smt. Vineeta Tiwari, W/o Shri Dinesh Tiwari, aged 47 years, President Saytri Bal Sanskar School, Chief Managing Trusty, Gaytri Fa'mily Trust. 2. Smt. Maduri Radke, W/o Late Madukar- Rao, aged 65 years, Vice-President, School Samiti, Saytri Bal Sanskar School. 3. Dinesh Tiwari, S/o Shri D.L Tiwari, aged 52 years, Treasure, School Samiti, Saytri Bal Sanskar School. 4. Kamal Narayan Prasad, S/o Late Tulsi Prasad Pandey, aged 62 years, Member, School Samiti, Gaytri Bal Sanskar School. All are R/o Saytri Shaktipith, Station Road, Durg (C.6.) Vs 1, Smt. Renu Chauhan, W/o Shri Sanjeev Chauhan, aged 42 years, R/o Deepak Nagar, burg (C.6.) 2. Smt. Payari Bai Sahu, W/o !Ht ' Manglu Das, aged 55 years, Joint Secretary, School Samiti, Gaytr'i Bal Sanskar School <& Teacher Ratnakar Jha Primary School, Panchsheel Nagar, Durg (C.G.) Jfea- CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCE&URE. 1908 an^i w ft-ti'* WIT SII^F stili'* <:' T=T '<i]i|i<n<i, a^ly'Ko, (sidKHy .•-^•--M-^---^200 SH^I Tra%' (ij*t{^<«iK[) TOnw^ftasii^r S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N,K. Aaarwa Shri Rajeev Shrivastav^ Shrivastava, Advocates for applii with Shri Malay Kumar dants. Heard on admission. Feeling aggrieved and 04.02.2010 passed by the iVth C No. 01/2009, whereby and allowed the restoration appiicati and the suit was restored, the ins by the applicants/defendants No. The brief facts of the case The non applicant No. 1| declaration and damages. On| dismissed forwant of Drosecutiori for restoration of the suit was filefd on the ground that by mistake the date of hearing was noted by| The tria! court, ho!dina suft the non applicant No. 1 for her allowed the application and resto Shri Shrivastava, !earne|j counsel appearing for the applicants, would contend that c|ause of non appearance shovi'n the non applicant No. 1 is no^ of Shri A.K. Choul 'i:frl'(;lf<*t'41'( MM^ff ^f fe^ ^f^?R ^'affinsii^r difesatisfied with the order dated |vil Judge, Class II, Durg, in M.JC whlereunder the court be!ow has j|)n fited by non applicant No. 1 i^tant revision has been preferrec |1,2,4 & 5. fere as under: filed a suit seeking relief of 05.11.2009, the said suit was . On 06.11.2009, an application counsel as 06.11.2009. cient cause has been shown by jion appearance, on 05 11 .2009 1-ed the suit. correct in the liaht of statement OTB^T SEtsft^.p'ITB!)', (f-a'ipri^—K.S147—2/2010—1,00,000. ^ns@l-feD?'?93fjpQ b^for^ th° trial coiiTt ^^.^;S1 fifll sm '3^ '*ll*ll<yl<1, S?Tliy'16, fs(dl'Mll,< ••^200 3n^?r 'VR! (i^i^'t^r) 311^1 W f?-fl4i '(WT SH^T s»)*ii<t* /•\ Sahu wnw^fci 3ii^i Having heard the counsel apijiearing for the applicants and laving perused the order impi| lurisdictionai illegality committed by| aforesaid order. The suit was| application for its restoration was \ day i.e. on 06.11.2009, the counsei aiso stated in his evidence that he n the Diarv on 06.11.2009 whel Jismissal of the case. It is trite l^w that the court's approach should be libera! while deciding suc!|) app!ication. Forthe forgoing, the revisjon +W(<'f4'l t|W<"i!''if ftlZKq^K ^?3tfOT 311^1 Igned, 1 do not find any the triai court in pass'ng the dismissed on 05.11.2009, |led immedlate!y on the next for non aDplicant No. 1 had has noted date of 05.1 1.200C •h he came to know about beinci devoid of substance is ilable to be and is hereby dismisse^. However, it is directed that the trial court shall decide the suit ^xpeditiously. No order as to sosts. Sd/- N.K. Agarwa] Judge