SSTHEHIGS M'^BH^SXSaR camATmESGARH WRITPETITION N0. S^ 8 ] OF 2005 VKiinovfESt |Judgment Debtor ..—.I^"..--..-—.,..... Shyam Lal Agrawal ^Sfoa^^a^ -^^'"s aged about 55 years, occupation business, resident ofVUlage Dhiykot, P.S.Dabhra, TahsU Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (CG). VBaKSCS BtESPONDENTS: ^1. Firffl Mahavir Tradmg Company, through Proprfetor Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Bajrang Lal, resident pf Ciandbi Ganj, Rsigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (CG) (Decree Etotder) y^^5.^ ManoJ Kumar Agrawal S/o Hariram Agrawal, ^"^ ^s^^ abaut 35} ye^s^ resid^ of Laltanki ^-.^' • ^' Rnhli N'?' Bohidaii>gra;;''RaigarhTaIisil and District ^^^ ^M^3. ^,^AV •^•-^i'«x^ %^'" ^^ 'y ^4. 5. -^. Raigarh{GO). ; PrabhalcaT Singhanrya S/o Shri Sfaahl^E Lal! Singhaniya, aged 47 years, resKleht of! Lal Tanld Danipara Road, Raigarh , Tahsil ;and District RaigEirh (C©). (Auctten PurchajSter) Gopal Agrawal S/o Shyam Lal Agrawal, aged aboiitSOyears. Anish Agrawal S/Q Shyam Agrawal, aged;24 years.(Botti i.e. Nb.4 and 5 both resideni pfi ViUage Dhurkot, Tahsil Dabhra, Disjriet Janjgir Chmapa (CG). Singhal Enterprises , through its Director ; Sanjay Agrawat, cesident ofSinghal Enterpns^s, Near;8anjari Mandir, Raigarh,! TahsUatid@istriGtRaigsu-h(CG). ^.—(Resq>on<teatsNo.4toeotijectore) HarisharLkerSMlar^AadeshikaWahak, | District Court, Raigarii {CGr). Ba^hhu Lal^^Neelflmi Notice Chasiiakarta ,j District:©oi.tr1:,Raigarh (CG). iii;' ir:': ::llli --—^••ii 0-) 9, Babu Lal, Sale Airun, District Court Raigarh (CG). E'I'3'ETrKON UHMai ARTICLE227 0t THE COSSTITOTION OF itigcmiSSOAIICE < 1«mTORWRITS. ORDME ORORDERS. WCW C^^^^^ M^ 'TSS KACTS AMD WliKSTA»©ESOFTBECAaB T=; XI-HC-22 *i|tinisn*ii<n 3:5g'-5irai?ra, ®Tflwls,(siciiwy 311^1 <45iqi ^ 200 5- 53 R*od 3II^T?iT f^Twan^r giiiRigfN i^ 3n^TB«iiig<g)N' 10-8-2005 Shri Shailendra Dubey, Ad^ Heard. The petitioner has prefer 227 of the Constitution of Indial +i'iifci41-f wsf ffV&-& <Ri+&i< ^isiRmsn^r 'ocate for the petitioner. "ed this writ petition under Article t being aggrieved by the order dated 27-6-2005 passed .in Execution ^ase No. 21-B/1999 by the District Judge, Raigarh. A perusal of theordershe^tdated 27-6-2005 reveals that the learned &istrictjudge hasorde^ed for examination of the process server Harishankar Sidar, the |ierson who affixed the notice of auction Bachchulal ond Sale Am'iv\ the property which was attached auctioned ina lesser price then Babulal Yachv for identification of and being auctioned, whereas in the petition the petitioner has raisei| several grounds that the property which was attached is not beirjg sold and the property has been |+ie market price in connivance with respondents N6. 2 and 3-auction (^urchaser who are relative of decree holder. Even the petftioner mad^ the request by cn application for allowing him to deposit the decre^al amount and that he has moved an application thttt the auction purcl within 15 days. Counsel for applications are not being decidi laser hasnot deposited the amount [he petitioner argues that these ;d by the Executing Court/District Judge. -QL. |Bflaspur(C.G.) ^ate 6^cq..j.200.{7 XI-HC-22 ^sg' ?mn?Fr, oTntf'is, Ri<'tiuy 3T^?Tf^ein 54 tlTWIT SB*11«n Ajv^ 200 5~~ f^5% 1 sn^T^ir R-fisti-W^T igTnrai^a' -<• So far, no order has been an order is passed by the Execu^ing to interfere. However, the Execi|iting order on these applications in ac^ at liberty to raise all objectiohs Executing Court to decide the sdtjie So far as the order dateij fine any illegality or irregularity^ writ petition is dismissed being no^t In view of this order, 6937/2005 and I.A. No. 6938/20(35. *i<iTci<fl-i *ii<iaT^Tsl<;l <Ri«i< ^isil^irsn^T ^assed on these applications. Unless Court, this Court is not entitled Court is expected to poss the ordance with law. The petitioner is before the Executing Court and the in accordance withtaw. 27-6-2005 is concerned, I do not in the said order, therefore, this maintainable at this stage. M.W.P. No. 3096/2005, I.A. No. also stand disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge