0 G^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CivilRevision No.~wu of 2003 SHial&Bene^^^ ^'Ae^(" ?XRDAR GURVACHAN SINGH, SON OE SHRI RAWAIL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/0 STATION ROAD LODfflPARA, RAIPUR [C.G.] MOHAN LAL ACjARWAL, SON OF SHRI LAXMINARAYAN AGARWAL; AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R70 H.NO. 16/491, LODmPARA, STATION ROAD, RAIPUR [C.G.] 2/ MADAN LAL AGARWAL, SON OF SHRI LAXMINARAYAN AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R70 BUS STAND CHARODA , DURG [C.G-] jOVERDHAN LAL AGARWAL, SON OF SHRI , LAXMINARAYAN AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/0, LODHIPARA, STATION ROAD, RAIPUR [C.G.] 4/rPHRSHOTTAM DAS, ^- SON OF . SHRI LAXMINARAYAN VERSUS ^?'.>'wl^{ .^^1 e'-T:?^' ..••• ^SM^""' <s^"' ^' APPLICANT/ [DEFENDANT] (?.~ ^; AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT35YEARS. $< TANSUKH DAS SON OF SHRI LAXMTNARAYAN AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT38YEARS. N0.4 & 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF LODfflPARA,RAIPUR MANSUKH LAL AGARWAL, SON OF SHRI LAXMINARAYAN AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/0 STATION ROAD, RAIPUR [C.G.] NON-APPLIGANTS' [DEFENDAN'q- II REVISIONPETITIONUNDERSECTION1150FCODEOF CIVIL PROCEDtJRE,1908 F XI-HC-22 3tl^?TW f^iwan^T *tii<* ul^r 3^ •^[•iiiaq, ^ta®,(Gi<'iwy __..^.^2^D^ ^- tnWtT9)*<l«h aii^-ii ewiWtitsn +Klf<'l^l-f HWdTfffe^ tRl^R: St;3if^T3II^T 09^)3-2005 Shri B.P.Sharma, Counsef forthe applicant. This revision is directed a|gainst order dated 09-04-2003 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, R^ the applicatioh of the applicant Code of Chril Procedure has applicant had prayed for permiss However, learned couns^ rewsion petiUon With liberty to fite lipyr in CMI Suit No. 23-A/20)2 whereby mder Order 8 Ririe 1- A read with 151of been rejected. By this application the ion toflle certified copy ofthe statements recorded in earlier Civil Suit N6. 74-A/1999 and the same was dismissed. for the applteant seeks to withdraw this appropriate proceedjngs avaitable uncter ttie law as instant revision pet|tion is not maintainable in view of the provisotoSection 11 Softtie C.P|C. In yiew of the above subl'nissioris and the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Surya Dei] Shakti Goop. Housing Sociel i Rai Vs. RamChander Raiandothers reported in (2003) Vol. 6, SC<f: 675 as well as in the matter of Shiv |, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers and others reported in (2003) 6 |SCC 659, the instant revision Is not maintainable. I The Givil Revision is dismitsed as withdrawn w'rth liberty as prayed above^ . I , Leamed counsel for the artplicant also prays that the certffied copy of order annexed with the revij furnishing attested photocopyoftl] >ion petition be reftjmed on applicant e same. ((l^y^). •-'T XI-HC-22 :3:^''<ll<l]c1<l,»Tn<rl'l<o;,R|dltilj< ^^f2^/(S3 »ira?iTsR*nw^*"'^""—?4"^aefr. f°l'b«&. an^T^r R-iii'sn^T st>*( fl1?g' \^..' fcgvn^' sn^rwgraTHf^tf OfRce is dirwfed to retum[ annexed wlth ttie revision petitio|i fumishing attested photocopy off|he <tii<iFCT<fl-<*iwciTfffs^6 tfSreerc ^sri^ran^T the certified copyofthe impugned order to the counsel for ttie applicant on his same. ~ Sd/- Diurendra Mishra Judge ../ (^^&) ll:irt'