i! :^y ^. •^ HIGHCQURTOF CHHAmiS(MRH_ATBILASFl% W.P. (227) No. 6531 of2008 Petitioiier Smt. ;Lakshmi.^Gt^a;W/^ Pal Giipata, aged abou1:,-50!years, R/o.Shiv Para Tali. and Distt. Durg (CG). Versiis Cbapdi' ^ajtidir 'Samiti^^^'^^ Manager, :Jai ^KBmar Shaijma,^ aged^about 55 years, IL/o Oiandi Chowk Durg Tafa. andDisttt)urg(CG). . Writ Petition.ynder Article 227 oftt^ oflndia' fSmgle Bendi:' Hoa'Me Mr.'N.K. Aearwjai, J.) • - Res©oiadeiit Presc^t : SlmyipmTiwari, Advocatej&rthepc^ Sliri Mamsh Upadliyay, Advooate for^he^es^ondeiit. ORALONDER (Passed oii 5th d^ ofMay,2009) Heard cn admission. The instant petrlion has bcen directed agamst the order dated 15.09.2008 (Armexure P/9), passed by tfie Vth Ciml Judge, aass- 2, Durg, District Durg^ m. civil ^suit, No..:'45A/©551Niereby;.the, application, filed by the defe^dajrit^etitioiwr under Section 151, Order 6 Rule 17, and Order 8 Rule l(a) 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been dlsmissed and the case was Ifixed fe cross-exammation ofdefendant/ petitioner. | The Mef fects of t3ie case in ri^^ respondent herem, v^^^ petitioner fmm^ the " petitioiier." is:: that :'as- per 'tfie'. 'idocuments! receilyed; •)by^'1^^ petitioner imder Rigfat to Infomiatiori .^ persoii wiio| lias file^^^ .li ll.;::-':!'^.^-:I' the suit on behalf of fhe trust is neither a Jmsty nor the pei^on ^m -—.-..„,——^ff? aufhorized to file a suit on behalf of the sald trust, fherefbre^ the suit is :ijicompefent,: aad leamed CM^ ' Class II,' wrongly dismissed fheir applicafion under Section 151 ofC.P.C. A bare perusal of the iiiipugued oider aad fhe pteadiags of the parties would.:reveal that status of the respondeiit as registered piiblic trust and relatiouship of laadloid aad teuaat between tlie said trust and the petitioner was not deuied by the defendaiit / petitioiier h.ereia ta her written stateinent • ^ The contention raised by Shri VipiiiTiwaii, leaiTied counsel for tlie petitioner is that the tdal Court had wrongly disaiissed the petitioner's I appiication despite the fact 'that name offhe pex'son. who filed the suit 011 behalf*ofthe trust did uot find place ia the register of Registi'ai' of PiibMc Trust and, therefore, tBe suit itself was iricompetent and the leamed trial Court ouglit to liave allowed the application filed by the petitioner. . _ • • I do uot fiiid any substaace iii fhe conteutioii raised by fhe petitioner for two reasons; &st is that, tlie trust is lao.dlord of tlie petitioner aad not fhe person who signed and venJSed fhe suit; and secondly, it is ah^ays open for fhe petitioner to raise this plea io. written stateiaent fliat the signatoiy to tiie plaint filed by the trust was not authorized to sign and veriiy fhe plaiat aad the Court wiU certainty decide the issue if i^ised by the petitk)iier. But it is not fhe case that by passiag the said order, leamed Court below GQinimtted sucfa iUegality which caa be corrccted ui exercise of II" JM SAu 6. 8. extraoiTlmary junsdictioa^^^^^^^^^^. u^ I . ,; , ,,,1 ... .. .. Constitation oflxid^ Cpurt. i /• ' ,-:' ' l'':.:';'- '•"".'..' :. ^- '- .. •"-.•;;,':. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercis^ of its supervisory jurisdiction unden Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India, should refram itself fr^m inferfermg with tfae order passed by the Court below^ excepl m such oases where perverslty, illegality, irregularity or juri^dictional error is writ lar^ on the fece ofthe record, which is iiot m the present case. In the facts and circui?istances| ofthe case, the petitioii is liable to be dismissed and the sanie is accordmgly dismissed at admission stage. No oixier as to costs. Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge .^-^