Tiir-]- -B)Ijfc—?8 flIISRBI ffi fRWi SliflPM ^ST "41411MAI, ©Tfl'M'Ko,fsidl'My KTOCT'(R'flra?"""""""""""" """"""""""W^.200 311^1'T^T (13?f3^t:') TOdW^ifeiaii^r WRIT PETITICflN U/A 227 No. 2S03. WRIT PETITION UNDER4RTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PLAINTIFFS iZ: 1. Roo age(|l 1'i Meghani, S/o Rharunomal Meghani, abouL 50 yeai's, R/'o Civil Liiie Raipui', 2. c.c4 Sai\ Me^ (ranand Meghani, S/o Bharunonial ;^hani, aged about 50 years, R/o CivU Lini}; Raipur, C. G. Bh^i'at Lal MaMieeia, S./o Late Bulchand aJpieeja, MS Pant It •^^i-Si-Et•»,¥•; 1.? S^sf'S^w1/jSLFi'jl Samij Sohel Rajki) Raipi Mr. N.K. Vyas,-<;ounst Heard. By this petition un(|l India, the petitioners hav^ whereby the application o| - - tillfl'iol't '<|t|<'if^fft^<Fn<(i< ^aiROTsn^F OF INBIA aged about 48 years, R/o tlritarai, -Raipm' C.G. Singh Sohela, S/o Abhaya Siagh |a, aged about 42'years, R/o in front of cit.mar College, Golchha Construction C.G. 3111 07-08-3008 ;1 for the petitioners. er Article 227 of the Constitution of iinpugned fhe order of Annexure P-1, the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 a:^i;irifBiil3?^^^;KB Q-3C—JS ffi<R»flii! R'li* sti^,<1 iSt>*Trai 'fw '3^r^i';<i<'i<i,»-fll+i<i<o, Ridiy^'!. *ii*iCTi(hll<!h """"""""""""""" """"""""^^200 31I^TTR^7 (tpf3^?) TCTW ^lfc( SIT^iI (2) of the C.P.C. for clefendant, has been rejecte< Grievance of the peti^ Devi has filed a civil suit dismissed with an possession of the suit laiic| and proper adjudication of defendant No.2 was necess^ I have heard leanied The trial Court has rel with aii observation that tll how Savitri Devi is necessi the present syit. Sim]larly,| anv relief against the Munit cu'cum.stances, prayer for ii| as defendant is also not necji From uerusal oftheat it is manifestlv evident thal claimed anv relief against to show any justi&cation fo|i in tKe suit, ffled by fhem ai|j of tliis Court, fhere is no pen|nission to join one Sayitri Devi as obsetvation Jf.- ^)^ci«ilti'WRif ^f "fe^ ^>i^i< ^rsTRnsii^i ;<tl. tioners is that earlier the said Savitri ^.gainst the respondent and that was that the respondent is ui and in these circum.stances, for just (lie controversy, adduig Savitri Devi as w^y. c|ounsel for fhe petitioners. jected the application of the petitioners je petitioners have failed to show as to ry OT proper pai'ty for the purposes of the petitioners have also not clauned ;ipal Corporation, Raipur and in fhese ^.corporating the Municipal Corporation issaiy. , a|pplieation as also the inipugned order, fhe petitioners/plaintiffs have neither said Savitri. Devi nor they were able I: addtng the said Savitri Devi as party id, therefore, ui the considered opmion iUeealift' or m.finiiit\' or iurisdictional the ff-HC—78 <s'°=i ^IIK'I^, ®Til'y'i<o,fS<c|iy^< *II*ICTI a>*ii<t» ' """"""""""""""""^T^200 3fI^?I'(I^7 (1?f3°"t.'!I) 311^1 ^il R-ll* w 1*n^?i sf>*ii<ft wiiWHfetsn^t 3 ':t>h[<nti1*i TTR?if^ ^S^ Tf^I^K ^sffinCTt?! 1 »"• ? eiTor committed by the Coui- exercise of the jurisdiction u India. The petition is accordi] However, fbe defence a of decree in favour of the res tinie of trial. below, which calls for mteiference in lider Article 227 of the Constitution of ls.lv dismissed. AraUable to fhe petitioners on the basis toondent can be taken bv fheni at the Sd/-" - ;'i '• Dhu'endraMishra ; / /"-^-<,:. Judge:. ; : / ,.. i, •'?'•