Er FE EE THE HON’BLE HIGH_ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT . Wf§ WRIT PETITION ( 2271 No. €83 ?\ /2008 ETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF Seetaram son of Shri Bhulau Satnami, aged about 3O years, occupation —— agriculturist, R/o Vill. Chharbhatha, Tahsil and Police Station — Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG) VERSUS ESPONDENTS / 1. Smt. Sundariya Bai widow of Late Dayaram Satnami, aged about 67 years, occupation — agriculturist, resident of Village Chharbhatha, Tahsil and P.S. — Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) / 2. Pyarelal son of Dukalha Satnarni, aged about 48 years, occu — agriculturist, R/o. vill. Charbhatha, P.S. and Tahsil Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG) / 3. Rajesh son of Amarchand Satnami, aged about 28 years, occu — agriculturist, R/o. Vill. Charbhatha, Tahsil 85 RS. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG). Vishram son of Dharmoo, aged about 72 years, occu. — agriculturist, R/o. Vill. Indori, Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kawardha (CG) P / R /5. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Distt Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION U/A. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INQIA r = a t Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition 1227) No.6892 ,4 2008 Shri Bharat Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Verma, counsel for the respondent No.3. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. for the statelrespondent No. 5. WRIT PETITI0N UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTlTUTlON OF . iNDlA n ORALORDER (25.02.2019) Heard. (2) Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pleadings V made m the para No 6 of the plamt regarding execution of wll! by» Dayaram m his favour on 26-04-2004 and its denial by the defendant N01 m para 6 of the wntten statement teamed tnal Court ought to j have framed an addittonat Issue tegardtng the executton of the wttt by ‘ Dayaram. {3) Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the said question is covered in the issue No. 1 already framed by the trial Court- and that both the parties would be at liberty to adduce evidence on the S question of existence'and execution of will in accordance with taw. (4) ln view of the above statement made by teamed counsel for the respondents, this Court does not find any case for interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra -' Judge o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR e PETmONER Seetaram PLA}NT!FF Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Sundariya Bai and athers.