•z" i^ remn^ tiqo-g o/s 'sjBsX ^£^noqB psSy remn~$[ iTqsng (g) JBUin-s ^iqo-g o/g 'sjBsX L£tnoqs psgy •IBX'[PBin (fr) •nsmn-gWy8. °/S 'sreaK \^ ^noqB p3§y^BXreqire^ (£) j[Bmn-)j[4!iIo-g o/s 'sji33XosinoqBp3§v-I13UIn~>[lTflreS fe) le'am^ liqo^[ o/pf^ (siuBpusjsQ) 'sieaA. ^y y\oqe pa?y v3Qi3T[upvmvQ 'VSS (l)-:s^uapuodsag ^^fi ^C"^ ^.'^?s^-.'^ (f^T^?^^'^'.' snsjs/^ ("D'3) Bdu.req3-ji§ftii3f-^OUISIQ wqqBQ •o-j 'BjqqBQ I?sqri jBqfe{q^^[ sgEjti/^jo siaspiss'g3 ipog (uBipjeno qgnojqj,) pBS^Jj mp3p\[ o/p^ reg B(mi3~>[ jsipo]^[ 0/3 reg EimE-^ ^mg jo uos psidopv 'ssssA. ^\ ^noqB psgy JBttin-x }ireXi3f (^),' •isun:p3u§v'nPUTH 'posuj Tup3p\[ o/pA^ / /^ / Jr.^ /^/ /y^ s^: .^s-^; •Ayi /ff^£ / .•s"^< €/ (sgpureid) •9-S 'ssas/i ^g fnocp p9§y!E9' ^iure-^ 'im^' (l)/-: sjauoppaj EO/^^r^ ""Nuo^ipd }UAV C0'3) ^nttSBiig ^B ajn^eoipnf jo^jno^ q3ig siqiiiOH aq^ ui -^^^o +-L^ cr ..2.. (6) S.udershanAgedabout32years, S/o Rohit Kumar (7) Kirti Kumar Aged about 29 years, S/o Rohit Kumar (8) YashwantAgedabout27years, S/o Rohit Kumar (9) Neelam Aged about 25 years, S/o Rohit Kuamr All above are Hindu, Agriculturist, Residents of Village - Kanwalajhar, P.0. & Tahsil- Dabhra y- District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 1 (10) StateofChhattisgarh(Atthetimeoffilingof the suit, State ofM.P.) Through - Collector, Janjgir-Champa (C,0.) .z..-^'. Writ Petition under Article 226/2f7 ofthe Constitution oflndia XI-HC—78 sn^i^ftfN? gan^sn^?! siitli=S -S^'^SS^, ^€ [S,wwwy. c^.f.^ zji^l^l s^W '<R (1pi3s!^) Ehiiid4i-i ^w<;ntf fal<a <f~^i<. 28-7-S003 Shri Akhil Agrawal, learneijf ly this petition under Art India the petitioners have chaili passea by Civil Judge Class-II, Si 2. • The fi counsei for the petitioners. ^le 226/227 of the Constitution of nged the order dated 25-3-2003, kti, in Civi! Suit No.635-A/2002. ^a' this writ petiti averment that petitioners/p^iintiffs are separate from respondents/ defendants w\d hac| no concern even with late Medni r E'US' 3. Lats Anandram divided'hfe entire undivided and divided properties during his iifetime in tHe year 1971 among his sons. The partition deed dated 11-12-197! ^as executed ond registered by him, whieh is annexed with the petii-ion as Annexure P-3. 4. Some dispute regarding th4 said properties arose between 1 both the part'es after the deathjof late Anandrom. Thereafter they compromi'sed for it and the (lartition deed dated 11-12-1971. sgSS -h ^EE[ .^||<<i<vl4, 0DWIS, 1<S|Q11<111,< WrfwftTWRJT ^ fe^t tf^P ^i'ati^Haiitw was executed by the share hols|ers, and land was separateiy muta^ed in their respective names. pTiey started living separately and earning separateiy from these (^roperties. After the death of late 1 No.l is in exclusive possession Kumar was sick cnd ili before h serious and he was shifted to ^o mcany hospitals. In his treatment, huge expenditure was incurred bnd due to this. he had borrowed the in possession o^ which is described in the list A the possession of the petitioner^ 7-i. i Kumar, the Detitioner/Dlaintiff of the suit properties. Late death and for one year he was very 6. After his death some lo{in was also required to perform his and for all this 1.65 acres of .^ was so!d to the different pers|)ns by registered saie deed and the The rest of the isAds, , are in .1. ^ VJ—FS/350—! 2/2000—50,000. XI-HC—78 311^1 ^llyfW Tiqr an^T *i<i«h ws^^s *>SI 'fi'A u^ssSSS^^iri- :t^'^s'':^'?^r^-''^^^:s§^^§^'' ^^.'<ii^ici<<, ^•n)'M''l6, ft^TOl ^I^WI «)*l«ti w, waiy-ire, iq<?ii'g,^< ^.f. i)L2-fQ>"ff^ 3Il^?t'q^?(' WISR'dft? 31)^1 the said propert/. 8. The petitioner No.l Wrtwih WRH <f fe^ •(te5iT ^taffinan^r 7. When the petitioner ^po.l went to Halka Patwari after the dea1+i of late Medni Kumar, s|ie came to know that the respondents |r names over the suit properties for . 1 to 9 got mutated the| which the respondents No.l 1^o 9 do not have ony right or title over tspproached the Revenue Court, Sub passed the order dated 12-7-1999 and Divisional Officer, Sakti,who| disnnissed the appeal cs bw^ed by limitation. Against the or-der 1 passed by the Sub &ivisioncl Officer the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additio^ia! Commissioner, Bilaspur, which is ig tor its 9. The order dated 27-1M999, passed by the Gram Painchayat, 1 Kanwlajhar is absoiuteiy fals4, erroneous, illegal and contrary to law. It was baseless. The endoijsement dcted 11-1-1999, by the Gro.m vide order date^l 27-1-1999, no prociawation of tiie 1 jcation was made, no no-^ce was sent by the 6ram Panchayat to .S".-! '3'sf •^i'4i<?i4, a'al-H'Ko, fsicii'Hy,< RK?f "9 ais^T 'v^: ('^fyssfi) ^ -Twa' the petitioner No.l, the saidl knowledge caid by giving receipt'l'o the petitioners. 'he said mutation was tod deed dated 3-9-1998. The re^pondent in the written took a very false piea that resp4ndent No.2 was adopted in the year 1966 by late Medni Kumar. Thjs piea isabsolutely false and vcgue. Tne petitioner No.l never comesi respondent No.2. 11. There is no dispute about question nor there is any suit impugned order dated 25-3-20fl creating harassment and undue (^ iess, they can be deprived o^ unlawfui acts of the respondents qmfeRh iwwff'it fs^ <F=i^h ^ sifeci siit^i .-^ mutation was done without ^diy k place by a forged to know about the alieged adoption. function or cepemony took [^lace for it nor the petitioner No.l, gave any consent for the alle^ed adoption in the year 1966 of |the identity of the suit proper^tvjrL ^elating to house. In view of the |3, the respondents No. 1 to 9 we. ressure to the petitioners, who are their own shcre of property due to as stated in paro 4 of the petitlon. :RJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. 1 T C! :.9 "s^r -^ww^, 'iS'^ww, hviwy. ^3.f- za^-fs^ sff^ T^RI i.^P! 311^(^1 h-f ?PH 'STT^T ^^ l!!;'tll!8NS8»-. i--i^S TCIIWHfsa 3)1^1 bnnecessarily is not permissible under the provisions of law and wher^ the suit propert/, which i^ "^1"<rfi^4i'1 'RT?RTf ^f re1^ <f^<^t< ^sjfgiTsn^l there is no dispute about the identity of apparent by the documents itself filed in the Court below, and ujtimately it hns been prayed that the order dated 25-3- 12. I have perused the Islaint and written statement filed before the Court be!ow and the ir^pugned order dated 25-3-2003, by which the !earned Civil Judge ol^served that it is true that no relief has been sought regarding the house but the land bearing Khasra No.569 is the disputed land. In o| the suit property has beer] hder to ascertcin whetherfflte valuation of done or not and whether any party wants to take relief without payi|ig Court fee exercised the inherent power Section 151 of th^ Code of Civil Procedura appointed the I ' bhabhra, os Commissioner-, and directed ! tiie site to give jthe report on the foltowing point. 1 / ^^l^is^^^ 'S^ '<iWM<i, ®-a\W ,|o!crll<-llj,< 3iR?E'CT?T ^NwfrT'WRff'Ef fetzt'^f^H 13. Whether any house i^ Khasarc No.569 and to prej^are the site plan of Khasara No.5S9 according to the factual posit^ 14. I have heard learned cd existing or not on the on d^the ground./^'A«^'sw •^*~ unsel for the petitioner. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Coi^rt in the matter of State. Stsecia! CelS. New Delhi Vs. Naviot Sandhu @ Afshan Gury and Ors, Reported injudgment Today ^003(4) SC Page 605, has held that:- Lfnder ArtWe and Tribunat'^ authority and[ Further wher^ of revisional exceptional interference ConstitutSon ^f statu+ory law\ jurisdiction u^der exercised "aj' liSQuise". 227, must be exercised +o keep subordinate Courts wiihin the bounds of their not to correct mere erroi-f^ the statute bans the exercise \powers it would require yery circumstances to warrant \under Article 227 of tSi^ India since 1'he powef of was not meant to circumvent It is set+ted hw that •f... Article 227 could riot be the cloak of an appeal in 3i.--'RJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. ^ 7?-' XI-HC—78 an^i'iBtl^TR; 3=131^1 •gnN? ^sr ''qraMq', ®fli<-i'is,isidi-y^ ^^ ZA^^ 3}I^n?RT ("jppp^q) TOim^feraniw 16. This wr-it petitiosi ha^ been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India agains^- the order of Civil Judge. Section 1!5 of the old Civii Procedure C look into the present case, csii^i^Nhi -JiH^ii ^ feTst' <f«)<^!< ^•aifman^i de has been amended and the revisioncl powers of the 1-iigh Court i|nder that Section against the order of the Civil Court has been amejnded ond to a great extent reduced. 17. In view of the lcw laiij down by the Hon'b!e Apex Court, if we the iearned Civi! Judge has specificaily mentioned that the revenjje land bearing Khasara No.569 is in dispute in the subject ma|tter before that Court. In order to t ascsrtain the factuai positi^in of that iand, the Court- has appointed the Tahsildar as Commissi4nsr to prepare a rsport based on tiie jround ond submit it to th^ Court and also as to whether any house is existing or not on the sai<3 land. 18. The Court has specif caily mentioned that it wili iook into the mati'er as to whether thej ptaintiff has tried to under va!ue the -S^s ^)i<<M<4, anily'Ko, isidiy^ t^ ^. 2.1'LL^ d3> C^i 'Si '{-i'regsiTO +i<<id41-( 'wigS ^ fe^ ^te^R ^sffiiiiani?; ~t4s^j-lt- ; • subject matter in order to u^abje 1+ie petitioner/piaintiff not to pay Therefore, I do not fi of ttie tr"rai Court whlch sxtraordinary jurisdiction unjder Article 227 of 1+ie Constitution of India. This is not gn excepti4nai case in which if the order passed is aliowed to be existed the i't' ^ any ille9ality or '•;.;'. • : Imcy require this Court to exepcise are going to suffer irr-eparable injury wid any pr^judlce will be caused to the petitioner against which the petitioner i^ill have no remedy. •^'1 20. In view of the abov4 I am of the opinion that this petition is misconceived, ^ime is dism'nsi J •; and '¥' Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge