IN THE HONBLE HE6H COURT OF WHATnsGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition(227)No.'2^ of 2010" ') PETTTEONERS ^ A^O^:-> /ff^ .-• y^/ / ^v °%y ^y (fy^W s..' ^/yy .r*7' J'. V '&• -e* . <*? .<? t>/ RESPON&ENTS /^on- ^^CA^ :1. Shyambandhu, S/o Late Amritlal, aged about 52 years, 2. Lakhanlal, S/o Amritlal, aged about 30 years, 3. Ku. Kaushilya Bai, D/o Late Amritlal, aged about 25 years, No. Ito 3 are R/o Koshtapara, Tahsil & Oistrict-Raigarh (C.G.) _ 4. Smt. Shyama Bai, D/o Late Amritlal, W/o Rupsai Dewangan, aged about 40 years, Smt. Shakuntala Bai, D/o Late Amritlal, W/o Murlidhar Dewangan, aged about 35 years, No. 4 & 5 are R/o Banglapara, Chakradhcr Nagar Raigarh, Tahsil & District-Raigarh (C.6.) VERSUS :1. - Ramesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Late fiautam Mishra, aged about 55 years, Occupation-Service, R/o Palace Road, Turkapara, Tahsil & District-Raigarh (C.6.) 2. Municipal Council, through the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Raigarh (C.6.) WRIT PFnTION UND6R ARTECLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTEON OF IN&IA 1 PARTICULARS OF THE PETE1 As-Stated above incause title. -ffa-e^ •;'" j'G^} "^'^.^••SK"'/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR PETITIONERS/: (Applicants) RESPONDENTS/: (Non-applicants) Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.250 of 2011 1. Shyambandhu, S/o Late Amritlal, aged about 52 years, 2. Lakhanlal, S/o Amritlal, aged about 30 years, 3. Ku. Kaushilya Bai, D/o Late Amritlal, aged about 25 years, No.1 to 3 are R/o Koshtapara, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Smt. Shyama Bai, D/o Late Amritlal, W/o Rupsai Dewangan, aged about 40 years, 5. Smt. Shakuntala Bai, D/o Late Amritlal, W/o Murlidhar Dewangan, aged about 35 years, No.4 & 5 are R/o Banglapara, Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh Versus 1. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Gautam Mishra, aged about 55 years, Occupation Service, R/o Palace Road, Turkapara, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Municipa! Council, through the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Raigarh (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: .Mr. Ratnesh KumarAgrawal, counsel forthe petitioners. Mr. B.D. Guru, counsel for rfespondent No.2. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (28-9-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 3-7- 2010 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-l, Raigarh, in MJC No.27/2009. 2. Previously, Civil Revision No.90/2010 filed on behalf of the petitioners herein has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 1-9- 2010 with liberty to file appropriate petition for contempt or writ under Article 327 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, again the petitioners have filed petition onder Article 227 of the Constitution of India which has also been —y ^-'^"^^sss' %5 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25-10-2010 passed in W.P. (Art. 227) No.5746/2010 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to file appropriate petition for delivery of possession in the light of judgment & decree dated 24-9-2007 passed in Second Appeal No.1321/1999. 4. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. No order as to costs. 5. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge !f 1;^<''^—--n • ;;-7;- ^5~^_r^ "¥