•^ •»t. 'V. 4 ,^». ^f^^-^^- '^(T3 c'/=")a^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfCHHATTISGARH) WRFT PETmON NOS^Q^/2005 PETmONER : RESPONDENTS •^/i9 .0^ •>%%/ / Satyawati W/o Bimbadhar Pradhan Caste Kolta, Aged about 70 years R/o Village Tetla, Present Address Chote Atarmuda, Tahsit & District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1Y Sagar Tathakathit, W/o bimbadhar Pradhan Caste Kolta, Aged about 59 years 2) / Janardan S/o Bimbadhar Pradhan Caste Kolta, Aged about 30 years No.l to 2 are R/o Village Tetla, Tahsil & District Raigarh. Smt. Parmeshwari D/o Bimbadhar Pradhan, W/o Raigadiha, Aged about 33 years, Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Chikhali, Tahsil & District Bargad (Orissa) 4-y Shaukilal Aged about 60 years S/o Shukhru Pradhan. Laikhan Aged about 57 years Occupation - Cultivator. Both are R/o Village Tetla, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) Janhavi D/o Ravishankar, W/o Suresh Pradhan, Aged about 47 years Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Vjllage Koshmanda, P.s. Pushaur, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through : Collector, District Raigarh(C.G.) / 5) 6) 7') PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS, DIRECTIONS AND/OR HRnFR<; _____„__ XI-HC-22 3TI^?T^)T f^TT^W^T ^ll^d^f •N 3^r ^l^l^t^, ^^^(0, ^Krtl^y 3T1^T q^T^. ^1*4^1 $h^icb _.%?..3.^. lo-T ^ 200 fd^ 3TT^T^<TT^K^f??T <=hi^Td41^ tnTT^ff ^ te^ <f^.'R ^3Tf^T3TT^1 Shii S,C. Verma« counsep. for tlie petitioner, Shri Suuil Om7aiii< Paiieil Lawr^r for the State. By thls writ petitfon th^ and proprijely of order dated 2] Civil Judge Class-I, Raigarh rejectuig the application filecl 1.51 oftheCPC. I have lieaTd leaiTied coiitiisel for tlie petitloner, Leanied counsel for fhe thcrcfore, uie ordcr unpugued I 3-iave perused the im mentioned that the petitioner writteii statenient was fUed b should not be accepted aiid 1 mcntioned ia the order that 013 petitioner lias cmestioned the legallty 3.4.2005 passed by leamed Additional in Civil Suit No.257-A/2002 tliereby 3V the petitioner hereiii uncler Sectiou petitioner argiied that the triai court accepted the written statenie^t filed by the respoiideiits after tlie expiry of prescribed period uiider the Code of Civil Procedure. B illcgal. pugiied order iii which it Iias been hercm made a prayer that siace the ^yond the prescribed limit^ tlie ^anie akeii on record, It haa nirtlier been the said date only fhc ordcr regardiiig cost was passed, 110 order reg^ixltiig acceptaiice or iiou-acceptaiice of wntten statement was passed, 12.8.2004 shows that 011 fhat that smce ttie plamtiff has thercforc, the written statement However, perusal of order sheet dated date counsel for tlie petitioner refased t.o accept tlie cost imposed l^y the tiial court. 011 the respoudents regarding filing of dclaycd writ^cii stateBient. It is further m.eutioued ah'eady refused to accept tlie cost . will be read without cost, XI-HC-22 3TT^?T^)T f^TN:)3:n^T ^ii^^f^r ^[ ^iqid^, ^xfi^^^, [®i<ni^< 3TT^T1^W WH^\ 5^^^ --------—- ^ 200 ^^s ^ 3TI^T^<n'W^f?cT Tliere m .iiothing on re^ stateiiient was filed witli ho^ judgBient of thc Hou'ble A]:|( & report-elcl stateinent ceii be accepied bj tlie defeudaiit shows sufilcielit Iii view oft.he above^ I| in the pctitiou and leamed or irregularity m pa^smg th^ of the petitiDner is iiable disniissed at. tlie adiiiissiou Conseqiieiitty, M,W, P,| staiid disniisscd. trtial <=hl^fd41^ WT^ff ^* te^t' ^f^f^R ^3Tf^TT3TT^I ^ord \vhich goes to s>how tlia.t the \vritteii inuch delay aiid even as per the latest tcx Conrt io. the mattcr of Vs. m AIR written ^ the tolal court efter expiiy of90 claya, if grouud for delw7. aiii of tlie opiiiion tliat there is 110 inerit. court has not cbiamittcd any illegalin' impugned order. As such, tiie petitlon |o'be disimssed ap.d accoKimgly, it is |tage itself. No.2790/05 & I,A No,6302/05 also Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^i^)