,,A In the Hiah Court of Chhattisaarh, Bilasbur WP (227)-. / 2010 Petitioner / Plaintiff Respondent / Defendants ^e/ ^y ^ ^. ^•".^'^••" %•' .^" ^<c^/ ^" Anil Wadhwani, 46 Yrs., S/o Late Parasram Meghraj Wadhwani, RajBhavan, Aamapara Chowk, Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Mannulal Gavani, 46 Yrs., S/o Late Dhannulal Gavani, 47/339, Brahmanpara, Ward # 47, Raipur (CG) <^2. Minor Lakhan, 17 Yrs. ^3. Minor Sunil, 15 Yrs. 4. Rajesh, 13 Yrs. 5. Raushan, 9 Yrs. 2to 5 S/o Mannulal Gavani Represented in Court below tkrous.h Guardian Smt. Durga Bai Gavani, 39 Yrs. w/o Mannulal Gavani, R/o Lakhe Nagar, Raipur / Petition Under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India ^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: HQn^leShnPrashantKuimarMishra Writ Petition (227) No. 372/2010 PETITIONER : AnilWadhwani Versus RESPONDENTS : Mannulal Gavani and others Appearance: Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for respondents No. 3 to 5. WRITPETLTIQN UNDERARTICLE227QFTHE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA ORAL ORDER (24.11.2010) In a suit for specific performance of contract tfae learned trial court has allowed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC preferred by sons of Mannulal Gavani acting through natural guardian mother 6n the ground that the propeity involved in the suit is thejoint Hindu Family property in which the 'said applicants have a right and entitlement since their birth. (2) It is- settled law that jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is fandamentally a jurisdiction conceming judicial discretion of the court. (3) In the matter of Subodh Kumar Gupta and others Vs. Alpana Gupta and others, (2005)11 SCC 578 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the grant ofapplication under Order 1 Rule 10 of -2. CPC may not be ordinarily maintainable in view of limited jurisdiction available to the High Court under Article 227. (4) In view oftheabove legal position, this court is not inclined to entertain this petition, hovvever, it will be open for the petitioner to raise this ground in appeal ifoccasion so arises. (5) In view ofthe fact that the suit is pending since Febmary 2005, it is directed that the trial court shall do well to dispose ofthe suit as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date ofpresentation ofcertified copy ofthis order. (6) The writ petition stands dismissed with above observation. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge