M ^ ^ .^^" ^^' .f ^^" ^: \<? i,^" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: C.G. Civil Revision No. go /2007 APPELANT: ~^ Lents: •i ^alitKumarS/oRamchandra, aged about3^years R/o Purani Basti, Korba, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.) Versus 1) KamlaBaiWd/o Ramprasad, Caste Brahman 1 Ramchandra S/o Bushan Lal, Caste Brahman Both resident of Purani Basti Korba, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTIONT15 OF THE CPC 1 XI-HC-78 HlN^tl?«»*11<sb ^lii^i^ i<r<^^ ^td'y^KDJifa^m^ C- ^. /N/C- ^,w^'w^m^ ?3TTi^|^1F| (^^<si^F) 3Tr^T^Tf^Ti^^ cf§TT3TT^T5b^l<=h ? ?: 7:?;^<TTW ^cT 3:n^ri 19/Q2/2Q07 Shri Ratan Pushty, counsei Heard on admisslbn. The applicant is aggrieved ^ by Additiona! Dfsirict Judge, Korbaj 04/2005 whereby the order date^ Judge, CJass-11, Korba in Execution| Brief facts are that a decrfe< favour one Kam!a Bai and againstj 29-A/1991. The decree was put decree, possessionwasidelivered After.delivery of possession to the appjication under Section 151 unregistered document id^ted 21^. conductlng an enqulryl appljcatlon under Section 151 o| preferred M.C.A. No, 04^2005. Th<| affirmed the^the order passed bytl^e ! have perused|the order| AppJicatlon under Section 151 of| under Order 21. Ru!e 99 sub-ruie ^nquiry an^i nothing cn record to show the| a jurisdictlon not vestedjln It by lav^, so vested, or acted in the exercls^ irregularity, I am of the co|is f|3f the applicant. chi^f<n41Ti ^i^c'il*^tel:^i<Ri<(-di<; •^ T^Y^T%3Tf^T3n^T 17^r^ '^ Ijiy order dated 01.12.2006 passed |in MJsce!laneous Civil No. 15.12.2004^ passed by jthe Civi! ICase No. 29-A/1991 waslaffirmed. r^e for possesslon ^vas in lone Ramchandra in CiviliSuJt No, to execution. in executidn'of the the dscree holder on 03,107.1992. ^iecree holder, the objector filed an bf C.P.C. on the basis of an ^.1983. The'executing Court reasoned order dismlssing the C.P.C. The appiicant/objector Searned Additional District Judge, Executing Court. ' | passed by the-Executing Court, IC.P.C. ought to have been fited [2) of C.P.C. The said order. was is a reasoned order. There Is llearned Executlng Court exerclsed }, or to exerclse a junsdictlon of Its jurisdiction illegajiy or with co|isidered oplnion this JRevision XI-HC-78 3TI^T^T^icb <TSTT3TR?T5h^|ch •\- Kvr +11+1011 9h*1ich 3FccT^iqi^q^ ^-cfl^Ko, fs<^KH^< .?..?. .\l??.;.A?.?t ^ 200-^- 311^1 ^5|cn ^Rn'w^rfN'^n^T has no substance and deserve^ admisslon. Accordingiy, this Civii Rej^ adtnission. In view of"above, M.(C).P.| also stands dismissed» Learned counsel for the aplDlicant CJvJI-suit. The appijcant is at iibe|' as may be avaiiable to him under ct)i^fc'i41vi ^i^QiT^:teT:^'<r3i<-<-i< —^^ ^ 3Tf^R'3:n^T to be dismissed at the stage of t/i'sion is dismissed at the stage of No. 307/2007 for grant ofjnjunctlon prays for ilberty to fi!e a fresh rty to recourse to such rernedy !aw. i'——-" • Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge