1 2025:CGHC:12742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 93 of 2024 • Satyajeet Panda Ji S/o Pyare Mohan Panda Aged About 75 Years Retired Teacher, Resident Of Village And Post Pusore, District Raigarh (C.G.), At Present Resident of C/o Shri Amitabh Pandasi, 4 Rayal Residency Saindham, Colony, Torwa, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant No 1) ... Applicant versus 1. Rakesh Yadav S/o Manoj Yadav (Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order And The Father’s Name Is Mentioned As Per School Certificate), (Mothers Name Kondi @ Gurbari Bai Yadav), Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Near Gayatri Mandir, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.)(Plaintiff) 2. Kondi @ Gurbari Bai Yadav W/o Satyajeet Panda Aged About 47 Years Resident Of Village And Post Pusore, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Sakti (C.G.) (Defendant No 3) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For State : Mr. S.K, Puria, PL PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.03.18 18:04:01 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 18/03/2025 1. This Revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 06.04.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, District Sakti, whereby, the application preferred by the applicant/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the Civil Suit is barred by limitation, was dismissed. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for declaration of paternity that defendant No.1/applicant herein is his father. In the subject Suit, an objection has been raised that after attaining the majority, the Suit has not been filed within a period of 3 years, therefore, the Suit is time barred. 3. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the nature of the dispute about the paternity of the plaintiff, this Court is of the view that there is a continuing cause of action. 4. For the foregoing, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 5. Resultantly, this Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka