AO-" .•A's.& ^ ^-!^- ^^•:T....- O^As5<;'-^.^' ..••'•"" y""" ^©MMr^ ^'"- -^ ~''-1,/. ?;" ~ '~'/0^ J'/- ' '^. / IIGl? BFMfiM iauris. ^^g^'^^g^ ";'.'••: IN THE BIGI-I OXJBT OF a-iHATTISGABH AT BILASFORC.G. Writ Petltio'n^e. S"2-''^ of 2006, Petitloners:/1, Banin Bai aged 65 years widew of Baadayal, Plaintl^ft /2, Ban Prasad aged 45 years sora of Baadaysl, /3. MohaB lal aged 35 years son of RaiBdayal, r4, BaBefear lal aged 24 yeais san ef Baasdayel, above all by caste Jalswal, cultlva-tors, resldeat ®fvillage Barekelkhurd post effice Hasad Tahsil Jaijaypur, Bistrict Jenjgir-Ch C.Q. ^5. tilohaamati aged 30 years daughter ®fBandaysl, wl-fs of Paksdy fey csste Jaiswal occypatiora cultivator resideBt of village Badesipath, Tahsll Malkharoda Bist. Janjglr-Chanps C.G. •V E R S t} S. . : . . B.esoondents Defendants-:^l. Sarhi Bai aged 50 yeais widow of Bahadul, 2. Photo Bai sged 25 years daaghter <s{ Bahadul, wtfe of Sadhu, above both by caste Jsiswal cultivators resi- dent of vlllage Barekelkhurd pest office Hasod, Tahsil Jaijaypar Olst. Janjgir-Chanpe* ^. Qulab Bai aged 27 years daughter ef Bahsdal and wlfe of Jairan by caste Jaiswal occupatlon household resid®Bt ef village Slrpur Tahsil Bilalgsrh(Balodabaz8r) Dist. Balpar C.G. 4. ShasanittBal eged 35 years daughter of Bahadyl widow of Buddhuran by cast® Jaiswal caltivator residlent of vlllage KosstBjhar post office ji^, & Tahsil Dabhara Dis-t. Janjglr-Charapa C.S. o y5. The State ®f Chhattisgsrh through the Collector Janjgiy-Chanpa C.G. r" •fSIg ISH !1'0 13 t-i 11-< Irs 1» M I§ IM 11-1t> § ihl »> ^i. ^ M l-si ^ IriI 10 w JH |wu R •-nE' TU?n7T'^"^"TW^T "^''T-TL'^T" ^M»""^::un|»ri' t: 1 -swp XI-HC-78 sn^rEBrfSaw gaiTSll^lsb4i°b HIHMI SftHlch 3^ '<<]'!<K'I<<, yTflu'ls, (slrtiuy __ CA/.P. 5-^-°)J 3ll^l yaqi (li':<f^al<8T) ?RITWHf?(T3tl^T 19.1.2007 i Shri H.S.Patel, couasel Heard on adinission. This is a petition filed the Constitution of India passed in Civfl Suit No.: im.pugued order, an offer the dispute by arbitration judicial coaiproinise, tfu-ou^ foruia, has been disiaissecl defendaats, as the defendaa.1 The Court rejected the further proceediags. Leamed counsel for appUcation under Sectioa 6)1 Act, 1996, was filed before have entertain this appti|( appropriate order in fhe mat^ Needless to say fhat Court is a Civil Suit, in. Code of Civil Procedure has an offer tuade for the coxapr(: the Court is left with no othir by leaviag such an offer. 1 &r the petitioners. °ti[<it<-i41-i '<itioT^' k<^t <Ri<i;i< ^i3l1^T3TI^T |by the plaiatiffs' under Ardcle 227 of ^gaiast the order dated 27.7.2006, .3S|5-A/2002. It appears that by the m.^d.e by the plamtiffs for setfleiaent of a^rard, coinproause outside fhe Court, '^. the Lok Adalat or fhrough aay other by fhe Court on. objection of fhe ^s were not agreeable to such an offer. afordsaid offer and fixed ftie CivU Suit for |fhe petitioners poiats out fhat aa of the Arbitration And Concfliation |fh.e trial Court aud the Court would ;ation and would have pass an ter. atp.inittedly, proceeding before the trial wt^ich, the procedural law inade by the be applied aad ifunder the said law, ^tnise is not acceptable to the parties, way except to proceed wifh £h.e trial ad: wtiich te f.l.U. XI-HC-78 sn^rwfew tW 311^1 Sti>1 ^Uvd^K ^imrtt ?hW<h 3^ -^WM^, ®T)l'H'l(o,fcfdiy^ . UU'P. S^-33; W^ 200£ --.^^ 311^1 Mach ('i,'=fij°)<]'T) ?%TWHf^(T3n^T "~ ^-' fa fhe opmion of comcutted any iUegality or i do not find any reason to i superintendiag jurisdiction Ipiis Court, the trial Court has not i^regulanty by passiag such an order. I ibterfere with such aa onler uader fhe l.tnder Article 227 offhe Constitution of India. The petition has no n^erits and fhe same is dismissed at the motion stage itsetf. Sdf- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge *i-iifa<fl-f mi?ff ff^S ®w( ^sri^iTsn^r P.T.O.