x‘) ,’ IN THE HxGH 001m OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR k Siaaw} Misc. Petition No. 777’ of 1994. PETITIONE : M/s Nav Bharat Press, Raipur, a partnership concern, Thraugh Ashwani Kumar Mishra, aged 3h yyears, Son of Late Shri Ramai Mishra, Manager, Nav Bharat Printera Resident of Telghani Naka, Ramsagarpura, Raipur, District Raipur. 0... PETITION UNDER ARTICLEs éé/zm OF THE oom'STITUTION OF INDIA, F0§J§SUANC§£E M1111 OKCERTIURARI, Ivmnmus, PROHIBITION, AND/0R ANY OTHER WRIT OR WRITS, RULE AND OR DIRECTmNs. \ / / VEKSWS Rhuk avlEESPONDmTS:61. wt»; :.1;... Third Civil Judge Class II, Raipur 5 ’2. Fourth AdditionalJudge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur. 43 Municipal Corporation of the City R of Raipur, Raipur, Through it's Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. 4. Commissioner, R Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt. Raipura 5. Shri Govindlal Vora Son of Shri K Mohanlal Vora, resident of Geetaéunagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur¢ / XI-HC—22 Vida order da‘red 17-3-200! pea‘i'rioner for making represen‘m't issued on 21-4-2005. As per 'i’he above sfa'i'emen i of Mr. Ashish Shrivasfava, pe’ri-iioner herein M/s. Nav Ehami Press > appeared on behah‘ of fhe pe‘l’i‘ made. Therefore, The maii’er is peTi’i‘ioner’s counseL peTiTioner has quesTioned The legaliw, By 'ihis wri'i pe’rh‘ion, The r daTed 22—10-1992 passed by The 3rd propriety and correcTness of ord Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur, whe eby The applicaTion filed by respondenT Rule 10 of The C.P.C. was allowed and The peTiTioner was direcTed To im lead respondenT No.5 Oovindlal Vora as parTy responden‘r againsT which he peTiTioner preferred 11—8—2005 When fhe maf'rer is cglied appeared and submif‘red ‘rha’r he M/s. Nav Bham‘r Press, fhrough Diwaker was calied and he siai‘ed iha‘i Diwaker, has been angaged. Mr. P he has noT filed power on behalf of The peTiTioner. au'i', Mr. Ashish Shrivasfava, Advocate, enquired from ihe Raipur Office of Mr. GD. Gup’m, Manager of The said Press aT Bilaspur Office, and he was informed ThaT in This maTTer, Mr. P. 5, SPC was directed fo be issued f0 ihe j; ion on his behalf. Accordingly, SPC was is aware of fhis pe‘iifion, bui’ none iioner Press and no represenia‘iion is being decided in The absence of The No.5 on 1148-1992 under Order an appeal, and /*/ 7/ Mr. Sonjay K. Agrawal, AdvocaTe for respondenT No.5. XI—HC—22 mam mm aaui$¥rf%?f Therefore! There is no ground l above said orders‘while exercis ConsTiTuTion of India. According Soma fhe same was aiso dismissed by ‘Fne 4’h Addi‘rionai Disir‘icf Judge, Raipur, Vida order dated 11-1—1994. I have perused bofh fhe orders. Perusal of order- dm‘ed 22-10-1992 shows Thaf a prayer was madg for parmmen‘i’ injuncfian regarding The dispuied land, which was on lease, and ’rhe iease was execufed in fhe name of respondenf No.5, fher‘efore, The Cour-f direcfed Thai he shouid be arrayed as parfy responden‘r againsf which an appeai was filed, +he same was considered and decided by The 4““ Addi'iionai Dis'rricf Judge, Raipur vide order daied 11-1-1994. In para 4 ()f'or‘der daied 11-1—1994 i'i' has been meniioned iha’r since ihe iease of +he iand in quesi'ion is in The name of Govindiai Vera and i'i has no’i' be an men'i'ioned in wha‘i' capaciiy The iease has been issued in his name, Therefore, he is a necessary parTy and ' accordingiy, dismissed The appeal. I do noT find any iiiegaliTy or infirmiTy in The above Two orders. >efore This CourT To inTerfere wiTh The ing The power under ArTicle 227 of The iy, The wriT peTiTion isw/ dismissed./,/ 5di- L‘C.B(HADOO Judge‘ (@W)