%% liyftjp'RF?,!?1! S.B. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS ^ •^ ^/y ..-•"' ^y^'-/ /^c^>'" .y,-K''y .^'^^ ^ .-'y^^ ^ ¥**- A^ ^^•^ ?s^ Q^o^ 1) 2) WRFT PETITION No. t.fc.^.'^OF. Ce) Smt. Sarojani Bai, aged 60 years w/o - Late TejBahadur Singh Cast - Khastriya Occupation - House wife Rajesh Singh, aged 33 years S/o - Late TejBahadur Singh Cast - Khastriya Occupation - Service Both are Resident of Dhanwarpara,. Rani Road Korba, Teh. & Distt-Koitoa (C.G) v/s RESPONDENTS 1) Vipal singh Banafar, aged 55 years S/o - Late Bodhan Singh Cast - Khastriya,0ccupation - Service 2) Vikas singh Banafar, aged - 56 years S/o - Late Bodhan Singh Cast - Khastriya,0ccupation - Service 3) Vimal Singh Banafar, aged 65 years S/o - Late Bodhan Singh Cast - Khastriya.Occupation - Retired 4) Smt. IVIanmati, aged 55 years w/o - Late Mohan Lal, Cast - Barber Occupation - House wife All are Resident of Dhanwarpara, RaniRoad Korba, Teh. & Distt- Koiba (C.G) 5) ChhatUsgarh Govt. through Collector Korba, Distt- Korba (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA S7 HIGH COUKT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinde Bench: Hon'ble Mr, Justice Satish K. Aflailtotri. Writ Petitioa (c) No. 1222 of20Q7 Petitioners Smt Sarojini Bai and anofher Versus Respondents Vipal Siagh Bana&r and othei's Sbri S.V. Purobit, Advocate for fh.e petitioners. OR_D EJ? (Passed on l"t day ofMaroh, 2007) The foUowing order of the C-ourt was passed by Satish K. 1, By this petition, ffled under Article 227 offhe Constitution of India, the petitioner chaUenges the validily of tbe impugned order dated 28,10.2006 (P/l), passed by the Additional District Judge, Korba, ia MisceBaneous Appeal No. 9/2006, whereunder the stay sought for ia the appeal was rejected on fhe ground that the appeUant has not specified iu his appUcation about the nature ofthe stay. Thus, the appUcation was rejected. The appeal is still pending consKleratmu before the teamed Additioiial District Judge, Korba, In view of lack of material facts, the'appUcation for graut of stay was rejected by the kanied Additional District Judge, Korba. 2. In this petition, fited under Article 227, niaterial facts, which wene not produced before the Court below, cannot be examined, as it is weU settled priaciple of law that power of supermtendence uuder Article 227 of the Constitutiou of India caanot be invoked to coniect uiere errors of fact. The High Court cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, convert itself into a court of appeai. 3. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at tiberty to make a fresh application before the Appellate Court for appropriate relief in the pending appeal. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sablu