h IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHH&TTISGARHA JUDIC^ffURE XC BILASPUR .^. Revisionist Petitioner_ Plaintiff Respo^dents DefencaeQts ^••^'.^ <3^^ ^•••;^ ^^:.^ .^•fr' ^^•" .^y" • :'vit^ '%. ^lM.I^-^^ -s 1 C.R.No.4^--^-2007 Sundarlal aged abozafe 35 years S/o Shri Gopal Sahu,Educated^ -zmonployed^ R/o«a Camp-1 Beliind the Bhilai Steel Plant School^ near Pxsmp Roxxse ^ Adarsh Nagar Nagar Bhilai^ P.0. Bhilai Tah» an<3 Dist.-Durg (C»G«) Verszis Hontble the Conimissio&er M^nicipal Corporation Bhilai- Durg, District- Durg (C.G») 2e Jl»K»SharmaS/o Shri 'Dasrath Lal Sharma sanitory Inspector^ Municipal Corporation Bhilai - Durg Dist,- Durg (C.G.) Hafis Khan S/©Tozsfique Moheinmad Khan S^ervisor-Sanitory Dqpartmericfc Munlcipal Corporatioa Bhilai-Barg Dist.- Burg (C.G.) 4. T.R.Yacteo alias Daddoo Yadeo S/o Shri B»L<Tad^x_Re^en^e Officer Mxmicipal Corporatioa^ Silai Tah. and Dist. Dzurg (C.G») Respondaists Mos, 1,3 arri 4 through the respondentM No»l Hoxi'tole the Commission^r Corporation Bhilai ^^•^' Tah, and^Diarg (C.G,). Revision U/s i 15 Civil Procedtire Code 1908 against the j^dgment 7•4^2007 and decree dated 9-4-07 passed by the leamed J- Additiona: District Judge Durg (C.G.) in the Civil s Appeal No. l-B/2007-Aayukta Mahodaya Nagar Palika Nigam Bhilai-Dzsrg and others • • • ^ K HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU^ Civil Revision No. 125/2007 APPLICANT Sunderlal Versus PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Hon'ble the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai Durg, District-Durg (CG and others SB:- HON»BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal with Shri Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate, for applicant. Shri Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. O R A L ORDER E (11-1-2011) 1. Heard on admission. 2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7-4-2007 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Appeal No. l-B/2007. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff/applicant instituted a suit for damages valued at Rs. 10,000/- against the respondent/Municipal Corporation, Bhilai Durg and its officers inter alia on the ground that he temporarily put a wooden boundary in front of his hut and was also trying for its allotment. On the above plot, he stored coal powder for its sale by Thela. Without issuing any notice, the said coal powder was illegally seized by the respondent authorities in order to remove the encroachment and thus plaintiff sustained loss to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- for which he is entitled to recover from the respondents. 4. The defendant.s denied the above claim and pleaded that the defendants removed the above illegal encroachment in order to remove obstruction put by the plaintiff in ^ 5. accordance with law. Learned trial Court decreed the suit. Thereagainst an appeal was preferred by the defendants which was allowed by the Ist appellate court on the ground that the said obstruction/ encroachment was removed after due notice to the plaintiff and the notice Ex. D-1 exhibited before the trial court shows that the notice for removal of obstruction was sent by the defendants. Again Jabti Panchnama shows, half truck coal powder was seized and the remaining part of coal powder was not seized as the encroacher promised for its removal. Indisputably, the plaintiff was having no right to store or put the alleged coal powder on public road/land and to create obstruction/hindrance in public access. The applicant failed to show that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Bangalore Hyderabad and another -v' Ajit Prasad Tarway reported in AIR 1973 SC 76 has observed in para 5 of its judgment as under:- "5. In our ' opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law, but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code." After carefully reading the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, I do not find any scope of s) ^' ( interference in the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e. revision which has been preferred by the applicant as no second appeal lies against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. The reyision being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. ^ ,0 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal