HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (2271 No. 5753 Of 2011 PBTITIONER Father of reso. no. 2 RESPONDENTS Versus 1) 2) DUeshwar Patel, son of Ramlalm, aged about 75 years, resident of ViUage Dania, Post Bori, TahsU Dhamdha, District Dwg (C.G.), Smt. Prabha, wife of Kedar Lodhi, aged about 45 years, resident ViUage Kaadai, Post Office Ninwa, Thasfl Bemetra, District Durg (C.G.) -—AppUcant Kedar, son of DUeshwar Lodhi, aged about 50 yeara, resident of Vill^e Daaia, Post Bori, TahsU Dhamdha, Distri.et Durg (C.G.). -Non-applicant WRIT PBTITION UNDER AKTICLE 227 OF- THB CONSTITXJTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'bte Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present;-Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sarina Khan Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents not noticed. ® 3. ORDER (Passedon 27/09/2011) By this petition uiider ArUcle 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioner has chaUenged the legaUly aad propriety of the order dated 23/7/2011 passed by Priacipal Judge, Family Court, Camp at Bemetara District Diirg (C.G.) in crimiaal M.J.C. No. 125/2011 whereby on fhe basis of appUcation ffled by present petitioner Dileshwar Patel fafher of respondent No. 2 Kedar Principal Judgc, Fauuly Court has directed to take appropriate step for suminoniug inental specialist. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sarfua Khau Advocate for 1 fhe petitioner is heard. Leamed counsel for the petitioner subiaits fhat petitioner is not party before fhe Judge, Famity Court, therefore Family Court was not coinpetent to direct petiUoner for taking step for suraiaouing niental specialist. t! 4. Order impugued and copy of the appUcation filed on behatf of the petitioner perused. 5. Principal Judge, Fainily Court, has passed afbresaid order on the basis of applicadon filed on behalf of the present petitioner who is not party before fhe trial Court. Consequenfly, petition stands disposed ofwifh following observations:- iu case petitioner seeks to prosecute his appUcation fhen he is required to coiuply the order otherwise he is not required to comply fhe order Ukewise if order is not conipUed by fhe petitioner fhen Court is not under obligation to act upon any application ffled on behatf o the petitioner. No order as to costs. 6. Interun appUcation stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge