HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT EILASPUR Writ Petition {Art.227) No.877 of 2011 Petitioner Saurabh Tamrakar, S/o. Arun- Defendant No.1 Tamrakar, aged about 21 years. Rio. ! Banjari Nagar, Kushaiput. Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1, Rikhiram, aged about 44 years, 8/0. Plaintiffs Vishai Ram Sahu, Rio. Danganiya, i Raipur (C.G.), Viilage Amleshar, ;\ 3‘ Patwari Haika No.5, Bhilai, Tahsil Patan, District (C.G.) 2. Dayaram Sahu, aged abcut 35 years, S/o. Vishal Ram Sahu, Rlo. Danganiya,‘ » Raipur (C.G.), Viiiage Amieshar, Patwari Halka No.5, Bhilai, Tahsil Patan. District Durg (C.G.) 3. Vishal Sahu, aged about 64 years. Slo. late Govind Sahu, R/o. Danganiya, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Respondent/defendant No.2 4. State of Chhattisgarh, threugh: Coilector, Durg (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of indie) MLManoj Paranjape. counsel for the petitioner. MrA.K.Prasad. counsel for respondenw No.1 and 2. None present for respondent No.3. Mr.Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.4lState. (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (oRAL) (23—3-201 1) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has chalienged the legality & propriety of the order dated 7.1 .2011 passed by the Civil Judge Class-ll, Patan, in Civil Suit No.32-A/201 O. whereby the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. on the ground that question of valuation in the present suit is mixed question of law, therefore, at this stage it would not possible to decide. Q 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the plaint, copy of written statement. copy of registered sale deed and copy of other documents. During the course of argument Mr. A.K.Prasad. counsei for respondents No.1 and 2 has shown copy of written statement filed by respondent No.3 nameiy‘ Vishai Sahu which reveals that respondent No.1 has not executed Power of Attorney in his favour and he has not executed any saie deed in favour of the present petitioner. As per documents and copy of written statement shown by Mr.A.K.Prasad, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, it reveals that the alleged sale deed executed by {espondent No3 in favour of the petitioner and Power of Attomey executed by respondent No 1 In favour of respondent No 3 has not been admitted by present respondent No1 or respondent No3 Inter alla, they have denied such execution. It is not the case rn which they have explained the circumstances in which they have executed sale deed and Power of Attorney, but they have specifically denied the existence and execution of Power of Attorney and sale deed. At this stage while dismissing the application. the Court below has not committed any illegality warranting interference in exerCIse of supervrsory jurisdiction. Consequently, the wr'rt petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take action prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against respondents No.1 and 3. Copy of written statement shown by Mr.A.K.Prasad is returned to him. No order as to costs. I.A.No.01 stands disposed of. ”z, :se a Sd/— T.P. Sharma Judge