Chhattisgarh High Court
CR/291/2003 of RAMSEVAK AND ANOTHER Vs DANMATI AND OTHERS on 16 December 2003
COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) C^^ 1 C.R.NO. c?~cf| /031S.B.) iSNgl® l.RAMSEVAK S/0 DEENO MARAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ^.TUKRAM S/0 DEENO MARAR, AGEI ABOUT 45 YEARS R/0 BOTH, VILLEAGE PRSADA (BADE), TAH. -SARANGARH, DISTT. RAIGARHy •-•'"C^'.!^'"' ^^yW' ^ ff.'
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
@
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.)
^ AT BILASPUR (C.G.) BILASPUR (C.G.) (C.G.)C^^^1C.R.NO.c?~cf|/031S.B.)
iSNgl®
APPLICANTS
l.RAMSEVAK S/0 DEENO MARAR, AGEDABOUT 50 YEARS^.TUKRAM S/0 DEENO MARAR, AGEIABOUT 45 YEARSR/0 BOTH, VILLEAGE PRSADA (BADE),TAH. -SARANGARH, DISTT. RAIGARH
y
ff.'^^yW'
•-•'"C^'.!^'"'
VERSUS
^
NON-APPLICANTS
^. l.DANMATI W/0 CHAMARA MARAR, AGEDABOUT 65 YEARS, R/0 KATELI TAH.[-]SARANGARH, DISTT. -RAIGARH (C.G.)
(DIED)
•'"2.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THR.6ua'H cc'^y^3-Sonsoi s./o NanKuyM6rqr1?(o ^t-eti; TA<- SaranflarhDtsft. -^oiyinfi (<-.&• )jt,te^i^^^.fet^r^o»^^
REVISION U/S 115 OF C.P.C. READ WITH U/S 151 OF C.P.C.
TOHC-22
^"^ -s^Fre, '^Tpn^pf; fani'y'j.t
^^i/.°5_HW»{gwi<*>te^?'fwvh|3I^?['qit sn^i311^1 •gSIIWBte•=bl*tl<-l<fll•^ 41Hyii'(i'fS<^ 3[p(p:i sn^i <r°l^l<^t^i -Hf^^16.12.2W3Shri \^neet Panfley,coimjsel for the applicaats.Heard cai admisslon.Therevisionisdirectfedae^dnst the(wder dated21.07.2003 passed by thc Cav^lJudge Class B[, Sarangstrti iaMisc. CivU Case No.1/2002,jiFhereby the Coiut below hasrestored fhe suit, dismissed ic(default, imposing the costs ofRs.300/-.Fnsm the perusal of th^record, it appears that thehearing of fhe sult was fixai oi|i22.03.2002. On that day, theplaintiffs could notAppear, as (|eadersons fead come to (heir hou^for settleinent ofmama>fmamageofs^tpta^^caaatNo. 1 Ram Sawak. It isalso bonie out fi-om llieixscdixl Uial tlui coLuiscl for Uieplaintifl's was not well. TheCbiirt below has noted that thesuit was dismissed at 11.25JA.M.The plamtffife filed tliearollcatton for restoratlon dutrfsupported by (te afBdavit on28.03.2003. The Coiirt below ftaV/acs restoped the sult subject tocostsofRs.300/-.Havtag considered theftlcte and dcccimistanoes ot' Ctiecase and maberial on record, i4w,the opulon of Chis Court, tlieCosls caiinot be sald to be onPgher side. 1n feict, fbe Ctourt•Ibelow has taken veiy lexiient vietiy^r. TheTearetwopl£untiffs,c>ne •ysi -sqTqRTiT, ^Tll'y'ld, fa«l'ai<^llP'R'IT^RIttl^•^^^•/•••••-Mfg^r'sn^i'^icbi'siffi^-i w^vii ^ fttA <r"i<<i<f<-ti?b sn^r^? SlPiIlI SD^I?hH' ^tli<Jlof fchem a>iild have attended the case.There is no ennr ofjurisdiction ariUegpUtywa^ranting interferenoeIn theimpugned order.The revision falls and is dismissed.Sd/-FakhruddinJudge