M HigH CCQURT OF CHH§TTESGARH AT EILA$§3U§ WRW PE?§T§§N N3. 2243 (3f 2%?! Smt. Namiia Das & Others (0% ?&%§i§cners ‘xjei'sm Union of india & Another Qasrmndems WRW PETiTiSN UNDER ARTICLE 226/22? Oi: THE CONSTiTUTiON OF INDIA {SE : Hawble Mr. Satis§1 K. Agni?aot?i, 3.} Praseni :- Shx'i Amrito Daa Advocate far fhe peéitianer. Shri Kasmf Sakeel, Advoca‘se for “the Union cf India. QgnER gigRAL; {Passed on 22nd day of Juiy, 2010) i‘he peiition involvgs ihe disputed quesiion of facts asto whether peiitioner is en’kitied to sum 0f Rs. 6,1.7,327.G9 from the respondent N02 with interest. Learned counee! fer the petiiioner‘sabmiie that ii is an amount due ageinsi the centraci work done by the husband ef the petitioner Na? and fai‘nei of pe‘iiiioner No.2 & 3. ine dispuied facis cannot be setiied by this Court as High Ceuri has no wherewiinai io consider and ciecide disputed quesiion oi facis on the basis of affidavits aione. Thus, the petition is dismissed as not maintainabie. However? iiberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to competent jurisdictionai oivii Court, it so advised, under the provisions oi iaw. cJ-. 4 Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri ,9 Judrgwe a ’vgi ashok