SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRS JAGDISH BHALLA, Ag. CJ W.P.iClNo. 5548/2007 1. Maniram S/o Dayal Satyavanshi aged about 40 years 2. Sheshram S/o Dayai Satyavanshi aged about 38 years. Both are R/o Viiiage - Bodala, Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) iefendants 1. Faguram S/o Dayal Satyavanshi aged about 47 years R/o Village Bodala, Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Budhhu S/o Sewak aged 40 years Occupation - Agricutture 3. Prem S/o Sukhiram aged 80 years, Occupation Agriculturer 4. Pyare S/o Sukhiram aged 75 years Ocoupation - Agriculturer Respondent No. 2 to 4 are R/o Village Bodala, Tah. & District Kabirdham (C.G.) 5. Dayal S/o Sukhiram (Since deceased) (5A) Toran Bai W/o Kalpu Bhartendu, aged 52 years R/o Pandariya presently working as District Public Prosecution Officer. District Court Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (5-B) Tar Bai W/o Kashiram aged 45 years R/o Near Mohgaon, Village Taitapara, Tah. Pandaria, Distt. Kabirdham (5-C) Tara Bai W/o Khelawan Aged 42 years R/o Viilage Hardi Khektara, Tah- Pandaria, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) (5-D) IVIoti Bai VV/o Heera aged 28 years R/o Setganga, P.S. - Kunda, Tah. Pandaria, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 6. Bhagwanta S/o Sukhiram aged 65 years Occupation - Cuttivator, R/o Village Bodala Tah. 8> District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 7. Smt. Yashoda Bai W/o Dayal aged 65 years, R/o Village Bodala Tah. & District - (Kawardha) Kabirdham (C.G.) 8. Saiik S/o Pyareial aged 52 years R/o Village Bodala Tah. & District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 9. Babulal S/b Prem aged 38 yeare, R/o Viliage Bodala Tah. & District Kabirdham (C.G.) 10. Kumar S/o Bhagwanta aged 36 years R/o Village Bodala Tah. & District - (Kawardha) Kabirdham (C.G.) 11. State of Chfiaaisgarh Through : Collector Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.) •^- • i Petition ynderArtjcle 227 ofthe Constitution of India Present: Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsel for the petitioners. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. i8l Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit wherein a preiiminary issue regarding the valuation was framed. According to the petitioner the suit was under valued. The said issue was discussed in detail by the Court belovi? in paragraph 5 of its judgment. The specific finding reoorded by the Court below is that the petitioner failed to substantiate any ground in support of his arguments. Even before this Court according to the petitioner the suit was under valued and therefore it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court concerned. However, a specific finding has been recorded by the Court below that the petitioner has not brought on record any evidence before the said Court. ] am ofthe considered opinion that the Court below has passed the reasoned order dealing with the question raised by the petitioner and the petitioner failed to make out any reasonabie ground for interference. Accordingiy, the petition is dismissed. | g^jy. i Ag. Chief Justice fefw^- ^Br"