^r ^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) 81N61E BENCH W.P.(227)No.3/<7 of201° : Smt. Seeta Devi D/o Barmeshwar Tiwari, aged about 63 years, PETITIONER PLAINTIFF ^- ^" i °,-•"' ...-,. .^^> ^^yy' .^•^'^' ^ ^^' RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Occupation-House Wife, R/o r-" Pratappur Naka Chowk, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1)/ State Bank of India, Main Branch, Through- Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2) State of ChhaUisgarh Through-Collector Surguja, Ambikapur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. T XI-HG—78 T' 37I^T ^T R^J^ '^8T['ST^T ^RT^ L.^ h"^ 's'sr r^t<4i<n<4, ^til'M^Ko, [«i^ii'y^< ^IHCTI «»*licf»"""""""""""""""""""""""""'^ £00 3TT^?r TRW (lic<^<BI^T) o ^^nw^n^n^i SBj_Hoo'bjeShri Prashant.Kuhiar Mlshrs,,J^^^^ 25-1-2010 Hea-rd Shri AM. Pandey, Verma, Panel Lawyer for the St^ The petjtloner .herein appiication ynder Order XXXSI Procedure, 1908 (for short "'th^ Court vide order dated 5-11-2001 .Court by the impugned order da| The plaintlff has preferrec| bearlng khasra No. 1998/7 are'^ Road, Amblkapur and for a ded<| created in favour of the Bank' i^ apptication under OrderXXXSX. CPC vvas aiso fl!ed. to- restrainl ahead .wlth the auctlon. of the taken bv the Ban.k under th^ Reconstruction of Flnandal Act, 2Q02(forshorfethe::Act, 20(|. Shri Pandey, learned that'both the Courts.below havel : suit land being agricuttyraJ lan.c| ^ " :•• ••/""—"' nr 2002 is:^t appilcabie and, theij- <=M^f<n^)'f "HR^f ^* fe^ <p»t^l< ^ sffiTR 3?H^?T ^ounseJ for the petitloner Shri Sumjt Ite. is the unsuccessfyi piaintiff whose Ru!e 1 and 2 of the Cod© of Clvl! CPC') has beers rejected by the trial'' p and has been affirmed by the appeiiate' |ed 17-12-2009. i a sult for recovery of possession of 0»020 hectares at North Rlng iration that the mortgage of the ¥oid ab Initio. A!ong with the an lyje 1 2 with Sectiors 151 of-the the respondent Bank frorn proceedjng ?yit property In pursuance to the action provislons of the Securitisatiori and and Enforcement of Security interest >). coulisel appeari.ng forthe'petitjoner, sybmits |not properly 'apprecjated the fact.that the the provisions of Section. 31 .ofthe. Act, efore, the dvli svit is maintainabie andlf ^y^ XI-HG—78 ^IT^T ^T R4i^3 ^T8?T 3TR^T sftHSo^ IKNW ^ + •' ^ 's^ ^i^id^, ^til-y^Ko, [®i<nl<H^< *{WWt SbHT^fr "^200 W^?T TT3R5' (licll^<sl<^) I^STW^I^ 3^? -^' the petltioner is not protected b auctioned in favour of third pen Havlng heard Jearned order passed by the triai C.oyrt| is of the oplnjon that both thel .pjaintiff does not have a •pri-m^ her favour/ It has aiso found tl statute, the plaintiff shaiS not in so far as the argume^ -concemed, the Courts beipv^J constructed on the sult prope| the said fact Is stiil reqyired to the provision' contained in RevsnueCode, 1959. The 'Courts be!ow havel power, respectivejy; therefore, or paipable iiiegality warrantirj' 227 ofthe Constiiution of Jndi4 For the reasons motion^ accordingly dismissed at'the nf| bl^' syper cr»i4if<n<fl<l"RT^f ^ fe^t {f^l^K ^3TRn?3?n^T bj^ temporary iniunctlon the propertywill be ton. c^unse! for the partles, perysed the pSalnt, |as weii as the Court^ this Courl - Courts have concurrentiy found that the fBcie case or balance of convenience io |at slnce the is proceeding ynderthe- any irreparabie ioss,. |it regarding Sand being agricuitural iand is have found that the hoyse 'has been ?fty, therefore, i'n the opinion of this Court |)e proved in course oftrial keeping In vlew pection 172 of the. Chhattlsgarh Land |exerdsed the discretionary and appeliate It is not a of any error of jyrisdiction |g Interference of thls Court under Article ^d herelnabove, the vvrit petition falis and is nf|otion stage itself,. ' . - . .. __- Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge