35mg ggmrg Q 9 ” \ Y ‘ \ a Or»; C m WWW W WW, ff a q f) . I, ‘QJVIUH5 wimp \ $1 9n. :g§,,v(§QFI9) Pig é; I/7uly? , @odfro w WW. l- W EH18 Té 37W? W 3am #0 3122, 15 W“ cn WO§OW3WD 63 awn. W (£60m) Petitioner Respondents B. Krishnamurti & another SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J WP. (C) No. 1066 of 2007 D. P. Saraf Versus J A" 1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the ‘ petitioner does not challenge the validity of any particular order/judgment but seeks following reliefs:- “rimmmhsmmomaimm WWW,WWWWWW€M mmmm$mw$mwwt WWW%W$§W$W${W § 1 13 mmm%m1997#mmma%mw Wa§w®wmwf$fam$mmm WmmmwasEmmafmmm am%l 7‘4 ORDER ( Passed on this 26‘“ day of February, 2007) w%méwm%m#m%&n&m §W§mqyfmm%maiaa§féwn$om wwmwwmé lwn5uoo/-w%m WmmwqrwmtmyfW§ 1" 2. I have heard the petitioner in person and perused the pleadings and documen$ appended to the petition. 3. On hearing. it appears that the petitioner is questioning the hnding of this Court recorded in para 27 and 30 of the order dated 11.5.2005 passed in M.A.No. 855/2002, which reads as under :- wGH COQRT OF QHHATTISGARH AT BMSPQR Petitioner in person. The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. v “27. “From perusal of the aforesaid provisions. not only the powet of attorney holder but also the principal officer of the corporation was permitted to verify and sign the pleading. B. Krishna Murthy‘ who signed the application. was the Territory Manager of the office established at Bhilai by the defendant Mls Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. and this fact has not been disputed by the plaintiits, therefore. B. Krishna Murthy. had power to sign the application even without power of attorney. and at the most, that was required by the corporation to rectify the said action." From the aforesaid discussions, it appears that the application under Order XLI Rules 19 and 21 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been signed by B. Krishna Murthy, a Principai Oflicer of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and duly authorised under power of attorney to act on behalf of it, therefore, the application was tiled by a competent person." 4. The entire case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has received certain information through E. Mail that there is no person by name Shri B. Krishna Murthy, holding the charge of the Principal Ofhcer. . The facts, in nutshell, are that a civil suit was tiled by the petitioner for possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 748/2, area 0.76 acres, situated at Viltage- Tifra, District- Bilaspur and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 2,1 75l— and damages against the respondent - Corporation. That civil Suit No. 69.A/1998 was parity allowed by the Civil Judge ClassJ, Bilasput vide judgment and decree dated 1 .12.1998 for payment of arrears of rent. . Thereafter, the petitioner with two others preferred a Civil Appeal No. 7- Ali 999, which was allowedfutly by the District Judge, Bilaspur vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 21 3.1999. .\ The Corporation aiter having come to know about passing of the ex parte iudgment and decree dated 21.9.1999. filed an application under Order XLI Rules 19 and 21 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure through its power of attorney holder Shri B. Krishna Murthy, for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 21.9.1999. That application was rejected vide order dated 29.10.2002 passed in Misc. Civii Case No. 19/2002 . é} 8. Being aggrieved‘ the Carporation preferred M.A.No._855/2202 befarer this High Court chalienging the order dated 29.10.2002 passed in Misc. Civii Case No. 19/2002. This Court vide order dated 11’“ May, 2005 passed in M.A.No. 855/2002 ailowed the appeai with cost, setting aside the order dated 29.10.2002 with the direction to the first appeiiate Court to reheat the Civil Appeal No. 7-A/1999 and after affording proper opportunities to both the parties‘ decide the same afresh. 9. The District Judge, Bilaspur. on the basis of the clear tinding‘ recorded y b " ‘ this Court in the order dated 11.5.2005. allowed'the appeal vide iudgment and decree dated 31 .12.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No. O7-A/99. 10.lt appears that a Second Appeal No. 16/2006 against the judgment and decree dated 31 .12.2005 passed in Civit Appeal No. 07-N99 by the District Judge. Bilaspur, is pending consideration in this Court. 11.ln this petition‘ in fact. the petitioner has challenged the nnding of this Court recorded in M'ANo. 85512002 vide order dated 11m May. 2005. 0n that basis learned District Judge considered the appeai afresh on merit and passed the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2005 and second appeal against the said order is pending consideration before this Court. 12.This Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain a petition questioning the. findings recorded by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal. Even othenivise, this petition is vague, frivolous and lacks material facts. Thus, the petition is devoid of merit. 13.As a result, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. this petition is dismissed. summarily. Consequently. M(W)P No. 691/2007 stands dismissed. Sdl- l Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur