•^' 3/e^nch TN THE HIGHCOURTOFCHfiATIISHGARHJUDICATVRE ATBILASPUR M.C.C. M 2004 PETITIONER/ DEFENDENT N0.1 —-y Smt, Lily Kujur, T Suspended • Si^rvisor child & woman A..^ €^£^ //^^•^' ,^^' ^<t"^ developmeat (termanent Address ^ RESPONDENT NO.l/ /&LAINTIFF - ViU^e Giraag P.0 — Ghoteag, Tah. & Distt. - Jasbpur, Qffice Address Chief Executive officer , Janpad Panchayat oflSceB^ieha,P.O. B^icha, Distt. - Jashpur. VEBSUS > Miuria.lRam Sartiu s/o Late SJt. iartlu , i^d about 57 ysais ,0ceu. — Servtce at Preseat Collector Jashpur, Permanent address — Yfflage Jafei aad ChalaradKar Nagar Raigarh, Tah & Distt.-Raigarh(C.G.). Uday Ram Thawiait s/o Late B.R.Thawait ,Agedabout 62yeaas, Publisher & Editor through Raigarh ofl&et Printa- , Raariila (jirouad Raiparh. EENDENT N0.2 DEFENDENT N0.3 - — -.^^Hemaat' a%ait s/o Uday Ram , Aged abeut 30 ye^s; Imiharge Editor Daily Kelo-Praiwah - Raigarh oflset priaters Raigarii(iC.G.). ''a.' @ ^s PETTTION FORl'SANSFEROF THE 8CTT l]/S24m5 OF c.v.c. - "" '• ~- ^ •• XI-HC-22 '3^'i<i<IJI<'l<i*:9ifl''S*ISSiR<<n!'<'lii< .--'•^ SII^T^K (i;-)i.'t> snjSi st)*ii^^rfit[ ••~-\' ^-- <111?IT t»>*llct> 3Tr^?r 'IR^ ?" ^.^^.s^^^ 200 (ci'btig" sn^i ^(iiwafss spc^ncle! JLid 6.8.2004 Smt, Hdmida-Siddique, coun: Shri B.b &ir'u, counse! for Heard both the counsel. Learned counssl for i^; o'bjection even if the suit is tronsfl I have perused the commen) and +he Gistr-ic+ Judge, ISaignr'h. District Judge, Jashpur reveais • was transferred by the bistn^' comments sent by^the'Exstrict been mentioned anything as to wh\ Jashpur when par+icylcrly in par^t mentioned That tt cause of actioi] sf the plaint anneyed in thia pe( mehtioned that cauge of dction &is'rrict Judge, Raigarh ought Jashpur as ths causs of action Jashpur Distpiet. Therefor®,the perusal of Judge, Raigarh, and that of +he •transfwve.d from Kaiga"h to ttes +l<licf'fl') Wl?lf4 fe'st'rfSR^R: i; SlpOT 311^1 for the applicant. ponde'nt No.t (plaintiff). ^nclent No.l submits tha+ he has no srred back to Raigarh. hs sent by the District Judge, Jash^pur Peruaal of +he commen+s sent by +he thdt The said suit (C.S.No.l3-B/20025 4t J'udge, Raigarh, Perusal of the r|jdge, Raigarh, reveats that it has not \f the said civii suit was trorisferred to 22 of the plalnt it was gpecificatly arose at Raigarh. Perusdl of para 22 Htion ^reyedls that it was speeificallv atftaigarh, therefore, the lear-ned to have trcinsferred This- suit t6 P^ad not arisen in th®jurisdiction of arbse nfrt the' comments .sent by +he bistrtct pjaint shows that the sdid suit uias Jjishpur under erroneous impreasion. XI-HC-22 3II^I'^[ (<;-ii* 3ii|Sr sti*iict) ^fid T;°g--ilj*IIC'ltl.'a9flltl'';lS,^S'IK'y 3TI^?T 'V^S *II*ICTI nKiiw""'"""""" " r: <n, ""yRi<i<tff"""" """ 'MS. 31I^[ ^IWHfCT Moreover, counse! for responden bisTrict Judge, Jashpui" is hsreby Judae, ftaioarh.for further proceec^ ' Consequently, stay gcanted vacated. qti^T<n41i •'-iN^f "^ is^el <f<n'^i< ^T 3if:nH sii^i No.l.has noobjection if the .suit is sent back to Rgi^arh. 'As sueh, th^petition is'alleiwed. Original civil suit No.13-8/2002 now registered a^ C.-S.No.l-B/2003, in the Court of Transferred To -rfie Court of &lsTrict ings and disposal. ^y this Court on 5.3.2004 shali stand Pcr+ies are enti+lecl for cer+i)Fied copy of this or'ejer. Sd/T L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^