BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Writ Petition (227) No. -^o I-?- /2011 PETITIONERS .A..,-'f\w~,y ^f&/ \ \^' >^c>y ^^•^ (••'/I \.-'"' ..•••'^''"/J;..1-' .^'y^ ^" 1. Karmela Minj,. W/o Shri Juliyas Ekka, Caste - Uraon (Christian), aged about s-s' years, Resident of Village - Kendali, P.S and Tahsil - Kusmi, District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) (Defendant no. 2) 2. Deepak S/o Shri Juliyas Ekka,aged about 19 years, Caste - Uraon, Resident of Village - Kendali, P.S. and Tahsil - Kusmi, District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) (Defendant np. 41 VERSUS 4 RESPONDENTS 1. Gansu, S/o Shri Jethu, aged about 35 years, (Plaintiff no. 1) 2. Mansay, S/o Shri Jethu, aged about 40 years, (Plaintiff no. 2) 3. Laykam, S/o Shri Jethu, aged about 32 years, (Plaintiff no. 3) 4.(A) Smt. Lichi Bai, Widow of Nandkishore, aged about 50 years, (Plaintiff no. 4) 4.(B) Amin Ram, S/o Late Shri .Nandkishore, aged about 25 years, (Plaintiff no. 5) 4.(C) F.alendra Ram S/o Late Shri Nandkishore, aged about 22 years, (Plaintiff no. 6) Petitioner no. 1 to 4(c) are by caste - Bhuihar, Resident of Village - Kendali, P.S. and TahsiS — Kusmi, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 5. Balki Bai, present W/o Shri Mansuram, Resident of Village - Budhgaon, Tahsil - Jashpur, District - Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) (Plaintiff no.7) 6. Hugdu @ Lawang Say, aged about 28 years, (Plaintiff no. 8) 7. Petitioner no. t afftf 6 aire by caste - Bhuihar, Resident of Village - Kendali, P.S. and Tahsil - Kusmi, District -• Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Budhan Ram S/o Shri Bipta, aged about 45 years, Caste - Uraon, Resident of Village - Kendali, P>S and Tahsil - Kusmi, District - Surguja (Chhattisflarh)^(MeR- -i^c. -L 8. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now . Chhattisgarh), Through - Collector, District - Surciuja (Chhattisciarh) £{Non- r applicant_ne.-3) t><~(-nd^ H.5 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS Writ Petition (227) No. 3017 of 201 1 Karmela Minj & another RESPONDENTS Versys Gansu and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, P L for the State/respondent No. 8. ORAL ORDER (16.06.2011) Heard on admission. 1. The petitioners are defendants No. 2 and 4 in the Civil Suit No.84-A/2009. Plaintiffs asked questions regarding sale deed Ex. D-1A during the cross-examination of petitioner No.1/ defendant No. 2 Karmela Minj. The same was objected bythe petitioners. The objection was disallowed by the trial Court. Hence this petition. 2. Shri Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit: plaintiffs have no right to ask questions regarding sale deed Ex. D-1A inasmuch as there is no pleading in the plaint regarding above document. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order impugned, 1 do not find any merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners inasmuch as the respondents/plaintiffs are within their right to cross-examine the defendants' witnesses in order to demolish their case. 4. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Gourt, the petitibners.have failed to point out any illegality in the order passed by 'l^-'-^p^.. ^ !¥ffiS8fe. 1 •^^^^^^ ^, "8 ilf ':^vy the trial Courtwarranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrainitselffrom interfering with the order passed by the Court below except insuch cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. lliigl&^llil w^^. \^^& M:!l