mGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILA^'UR WRIT PIBTITIOM KO. 340/3006 PBTITIOBMR DBCRBB HOLDBR RE8POIIDBNT8 JITOGMBBT DBBTORS Hanshad Rai Chatwatil S/o Late Shri Shantflal Aged about 58 years, R/o 1/21, Annparu Nagar, Tdbisfl & Distnct Raipur (C.Q.)^ vsKsas ' ' '? 1. Mst B. Laxman (siace deal), D/o Laxmaa, 2. Kunjflal (since dead), S/o Laiaaan, Bofh ttiroi^h tbeir Legal Represcntatives as under:- a. Saifc Girja Bai, widow ofLate Kanjilal b. Smfc Shobha Bai widow of Late Manohar Siagh Kunjilal c. Santosh Siagh S/o Late Ktuijilal Thakur d. Dinesh Siagh S/o Late Kuajilal Thakur e. Ku. KiFEm Bai D/o Late KunjiM Thakur f. Ghaashyam Sit^h S/o Late Kuajilal Thakur AU R/o Near Fire Br^ade Office, Beside Suraiia Bhawaa, Baijaatfapara, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chhotu, S/o Laxaaan agcd stoout 32 years 4. Kashi Bai D/o Laxnaaa aged about 23 ycars 5. Janki D/o Laxman aged about 24 years AU R/o BaiJDathpaBa, Near Siu-aaia BIiaman, Raipur (C.O.) WMT PBTITIOH UITOBR AKTId.B 227 Gf THB COHSTITWnON OP inpiA. (SB :Hon'Me Mr. T.P.Shana, J.) Present:- Shri Ashish Shriwastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Anil Pandey, Advocate for the respondents No. 2(^ (b) (c) (d) and No. 4. Shri K.K. Dewangan, Advocate for the respondent No. 2f. ^ o ORAL-OWIBR (Passedon 09/01/2011) 1. By (bis petitioH uxuler Articte 227 of the Constitution of Inxlia petittoacr has chaltenged the tegalily and proprfely oflfac order dated 18/1/^)02 passed by 3td Additioiial District Judgc, Raipur in Ebeeeutjon Case No. 19A/68 filed under Oider 21 Rute 32 ofthe Civil Procedurc Codc, 1908 •&— ^ S! for escecution ofdecree ofpermaiKnt iajuaction pasaed by 3ni AdditSoaal District Judj^;, Ralpur vide Judgmeatdated 18/7/1973 in.civfl saitNo. 19A/68. Vide order unpi^ned 3Id Additional Dfatric't Judge, Raipur has dismisscd fhe appUcation on (fae ground fhat judgment debtors are not interfisrmg with thc possession of decree hold$r and as pcr appMcation •:^. of thc petitioncr, judgment debtois are in possesston of fhe siiit propcrly but fhcy have notvacated the possessioa after passing ofsuch dccree. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for thc petitiDiNa-, Shri Anjl Pandey, Advocate for fhe respondcnts No. 2(^ (b) (c) (d) and No. 4 and ShxiK.K. Dcwaagaa, Advocate for the respondeat No. 2fare beard. Order impugned, copy of judgment & decree and coff of judgment of Court perused. As per application of ttic petitfoner before the Court toelow, judgmemt debtors & their lcgal representatives are in possessfon over the pnyerty and after passing of dccree for permanent injiuiction, thcy have not vacated Ctie land fherefore tfaey are interfering and distuibing fhc possession ofthc petitfoner ia accordance with Ctoler 21 Rule 32 oftfac CivU F'rocediire Code, 1908; DeweecOwri or petitfoner is not entitted for eviction finom the suit property or any pioperty ia which judgmcnt debtors are already in possession. Conscquenfty, vide otder napugued, Court betow has not committed any fllegaUly, I do -oot find any ilte^Mty requiring aay interference in exercise cS supervisoiy writ jurisdiction. Consequenfly, petition is dfemisscd with the observatfon that ia case of auy grievance pctitioner tuay avail remedy availabte under tfae law. No oider as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma