Dismissed

Kamal Bhan Singh and Ors. v. Ram Naresh Singh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2012CR/411/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed this civil revision filed under Section 115 CPC. The court held the revision was infructuous as the underlying civil suit had already been dismissed in 2001. Applicants were directed to challenge the original suit judgment via appeal instead.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision dismissed; liberty to restore/revive if cause of action survives.

Kamal Bhan Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Naresh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

IN^TH CH/ Civil Revision^No. /2001.

¶2

AP?LICANTS DFD. E0. 2—A,B,C, E.E‘, £4 G.

¶3

. Kamal Bhan Singh s/o Late Ramétular Singh, aged about 55 years.

¶4

\Lallan Singh s/o^Late Ramdular‘? aged about SO years.

¶5

HSingh, Surendra Singh s/o^Late Ram— ‘ I dular singh, aged about 46 ysag" All' r/o^MainRoad Surajptr, f Distt. Surguja, C.G.

¶6

Rajeev Singh s/o Late Paras Hath Singh, aged about 3O ys.

¶7

Ragesh^Kumar Singh s/o^Late ?aras Nath Singh, aged about 28 years.

¶8

Bhupesh Singh s/ Late Paras Nath Singh, aged about 25 ys.

¶9

All r/o village Dhaneshpur, P.O. Devnagar, Teh. Surajpur, C.G.

¶10

Surguja,

¶11

,Distt.

(gs. o£ DFD. no. 2)

VERSUS.

NON^-APFLICANTS

l. Ram Naresh Singh s/o Ramdas

¶16

‘0? S$ngh, aged about 55 years, r/o Gadha—

¶17

Dem—Agriculture, baghrai, Teh. Jaunpur, Distt. Jaunpur, U.P. (^{PLAINT xFF.)} {

¶18

V‘ 2.’ $mt. Manju Singh^w/oManoj KumarOccupation—Sitapur,Singh,ks.^Household, agec“:& Teh.abcut~ Sitapur,r 37o ya”l ez‘ Distt. Surguja, C.G.

¶19

3 . amt. Anjali Singh^w/oManeu- dra Singh, aged about ;30 yrs. Occ. Household, r/o Ghoomta Darpan OfEice, Bust stand r ‘ Distt. Koria,

¶20

Manendragarh, ;

¶21

C.G. (DFD No. l—A & l—B LRa. o£ E

¶22

BED No. 1)

¶23

. ..mu

¶24

Narendra Singh s/o Late Ramdular singh, aged about 39 years, r/o Main Read Surajpur, Distt.Surguja, C.G. (,DFD NO. 2—D.) Smt. Vidya Singh w/o Ramesh Kumar, aged about 52 years, r/o village Satwan, P.O. Mugre, Badshahpur, Distt. Allahabad, U.P. (DFD^No. 2—H) Smt‘. Lalita Singh w/o Narendra Singh, aged about 47 years, r/o village Lalpur, P.O. Sohagpur, Distt. Shahd-ol, mp. /(DFD NO. 2-I.) / 7. Smt. Suman Singh w/o Jarnail Singh aged about 41 years, r/o village Nimuha, §.O. Budhar, Distt. Shahdol, M.P. a (DFD^Nc. 2—J.D,Rs. of DFD No.2) J.é Smt. Murari Devi w/o Rajendra Singh, aged about 3O years, r/o Choprapara, City Ambikapur, P.S. & Teh. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, C.G. (^DFDNo. 3 . ) Smt. Getaé Singh Wd/o Late Vinod Singh, aged about 4-2 years. Ku. Swati Si‘ngh d/o Late Vinod Singh, aged about 21 years. Ku. Smita d/o Late Vinod Singh, aged about 20 years. No. 9 to ll r/o Mohalla^Choprapara ! P.S. & Teh. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, C.G. ,(LR’s. o£ DFD no. 4.) //( Pramod Kumar Singh s/o Late ' Vii Rajendra Singh, aged about 37 yrs. J ,./(/DFD no. 5 . ) ‘13 ‘V . Anuj^[Kumar Singh s/o Late Rajendra rSingh, agedabout 32 years, (DFD no. 6.) Both r/o Choprapara, Ambikapur, Distt. Sur‘guja, C.G'.

¶25

contd. .3.

¶26

CNIL RhVISION_‘ UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE C.P.C.

¶27

-3-

¶28

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & HON’BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ.

¶30

Civil Revision No.411 of2001

¶31

Applicants : Kamal Bhan Singh and others

¶32

Versus

¶33

Non-applicants Ram Naresh Singh and others

¶34

Present: None for the applicants. Ms. Sarina Khan, Advocate for respondents No. 2, 3, 8 to 13. None for other respondents.

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(Passed^{on}1 6-07-201 2)}

¶37

Per Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

¶38

This civil revision was dismissed by order dated 25.7.2001, which reads as under:

¶39

“Shri Sunii Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants.

¶40

Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the nonapplicants. Shri Dubey, submits that the civil suit has already been dismissed. In view of the statement made by counsel for the non-applicants, this revision is dismissed with liberty to restore/revive afresh if any cause of action still survives.” 2. The impugned order was passed in the year 2001, which arose out of the pending civil suit, whereas we are now in 2012. Mere perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the civil suit, out of which this civil revision arose, was already dismissed and therefore, the revision was held as infructuous. ln such a situation, the remedy of the applicants lies in challenging the judgment and decree passed in. the civil suit and raising all the points in appeal, rather than prosecuting the revision. 3. lt is with these obse tions, the civil revision also stands dismissed. ' ‘ ‘ l Sd/l Sd/~ (Abha’V‘Manohar^Sapre) (c.^Mitmajuddin) J U D G E J U D G E

Kamal Bhan Singh and Ors. v. Ram Naresh Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Bhan Singh and Ors. v. Ram Naresh Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartik and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Yogesh Soy Vs Secratory Madhyamik Shiksha MANDALandORS

Union of India and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kamal Bhan Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Naresh Singh and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Vs Mathura Prasad Pandey and Anr.

J.K.Kachchhap Vs C.S.E.B. and Ors.