^ §^i ^yig 8w&n ^ ^.CT ^ ^ ti^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl W.P.IArt 2271 No. 16l° of^QQ^2^l^ PETITIONERS APPLICANTS APPELLANTS ^M^ ^•y' ^:-'rl ^.'': ^<^ ^ fc'w ^ RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS APPLICANTS :1) Smt. Maheshwari Devi, Wife of D.D. Agrawal, Resident of near Railway Station, Brajrajnagar (Orissa) :2) Kuldeep Singh, son of Surendra Singh, resident of New Shanti Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) :3) Arun Kumar Agrawal, son of Vinayak Prasad Agrawal, resident of Purani Basti, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus :1) Smt. Laxmi Devi, Wife of Leelaram Khemani, aged about 55 years, Resident of Katoratalab, Raipur rfChhattisgarh) :2) Rajendra Singh Hora, son of Ajayab Singh Hora, Resident of Devendra Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) r" :3) Sarvodaya Housing Co- operative Society, Registered under M.P. Sahkari Adhiniyam registration No.DRP./P/13/ dated 6.10.62, through Liquidator, Rajkumar Naidu son of K.S. Naidu, resident of Shanker Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PBTITIQNJJNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'y^, -"~:^\ h<(UIIU|l||IWlNIWI: •«0»^' HIGH COURT OF CftttlATnSGARH AT BIIASPUR £!11 Sinale Bench: frtorrtiteShri Justtee Prashant^umarNiihra l%; i:^^."?aiil^':::::;-l::;l ;'' PETITIONERS APPLtCANTS APPELtANTS Writ Petitton (2271 No.1010 / 2010 Snrt. MaheshwariOeviliidottwrs.^^ ^^ Versus RESPONDENTS NON-APPUCANTS APPUCANTS Smt. Laxmi Devi and Gfthere. ::ai Shri H.B. Agrawal. Sr. Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsd^^^^^^^^^^ the petttioners. ' ^"" . ^ . . "~ -^:;-1;;;"^1;' '',I:T;'!I'';;:'','':"?'''I:'': '?^:l%ICr':p':: •^w ...;^l»^.l^^^^^^^^^^ JNbiX ORALORDER (18^3^010) ChaHengein thte petHion is to the orttercfated 03-11-2004^rKl* 19-11-2004 passed by the trial Cpyrt. By these ^ere, |khe4riak^^^C^ ;.«...,:....-,;...,..,;:-..^.:.....,-.-^ has done nothing except to post the case for find argymefit^A^ •^ ^Wffii^^lff^. 'Sft prayer in the writ petttion is to direct the tower appellalte Court <o^^^^ ^^ constder the amendmert ap3licaUon in appeal. if fited v^ intentton, accordir^ito^ lawin the inAere^<^ju68ce. ^ w-^^^^ «^ (2) The p^ftionere haye not armexed any such^^ a^^ ^-...----i..,.-^, ,-."£"-",-:/^ amendment whfeh was prefen^ before the Court betow. ^|qap«^ that since the matter was fbced for final hearing the p^itloner&'warrtectwfei ,..:ill.,..A'..:..i.^ an opportunityto m<^ some ameiKlro^ ^ (3) In the opinion of thte Court every Court is empowered ai^whave ^ €":51-l';a»^A.i.:iifr:-.':ai;! jurisdtetion to conskler |^ m|terim appB^ a» contained in the Code of Chril Procedure and-for that-nte^ l/^. -^!" -------- — --.- .-.-- r -'. ^----;-^:-----,,F----,,-^,,-^^^^^ direction is required. ^ ^ y- (4) This vwft petitton dismissed- devoid <rf any substattic®and| is^ hen^^^ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge