THE HON'BLE HIGH cou'RT OF CHHATrISGAR ILASPUR (c.G.) M WT RI PETITION () 227 Nougw ETITIONER enn o. 7” Ghasir‘am, S/o Shobharam ged about 65 years 7(75 . ears) as gara ’y, Cte Ahiy,- esident pf Village Tilaimal, 'Police Station and Tahsil Distct ri araiali ahasamun (C. efendant No. D 2 ‘Yghw, o'esar has-iram aed aboLIt 40 as, R a Aharia esident of Village Tila‘imal, olice Stati'On and Tahsil strc araipal‘ aasamud C.G. ‘ Mhn () ERU RESPONDEN laintiff-No. 1 G, of auribai ' Ghairam, auger , i hintaram aed ~abo’ut ears, Caste-Ahariya, R i tatio and 'ahsil Saraipa District Mahasamund?C-.G. s y g /o‘ auunda, Sn Tj li, () . aught hasiram, Wife of Roopdhar, ged about 37 years, ’Ca‘st a e' Aghariya, Residentlof Villag T nd Ditt M " ilaipali, Police Station a sric ahsi? Tl Basna, ahasamund (C.G.) IN H AT B OF 2010 P Defdat N 1 / 1 , a R Sp, Md G.) Son of‘ 4 G, g yer Cste gy, P l Si, Diit VSS 1. TS P Dht ~ Wfe 'Of .C, g 41 Vllage Kpk Police' Plaintiff No2 Goumati, Der G ' e v tate of Chhattisgar, rouh Mhd, aasamun aasamud '.. ‘Collect stri KA-AM u :K‘ ‘xA “A“ WRIT PETITION UNDER‘ARTICLE 27'OF-THE CONSTITUTIO Wrarkwwv ~ \ I . S h Thg: the or, bict ’*i ‘ e e e Mhn (CG) 2 N OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO. 4831 OF 2010 ‘ PETITIONERS DEFENDANTS Ghasiram and another Versus Gauribai and others. RESPONDENTs PLAINTIFFS , WRIT PE I ITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ’ (Sipqie Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aqal'wal, J.) Present : - Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Rajesh Ranjan Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24‘" day of January, 2011) finally. With consent of both the parties, the matter is heard 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 24-07-2010 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Saraipali; District Mahasamund in Civil Suit No.13-A/2010 rejecting the petitioners’ application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’). 3. The facts in brief are as under: The plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit for partition and separate possession. The petitioners/defendants herein denied plaint averment and also pleaded that in the life time of father, the daughters are not entitled for any share in the property. The trial Court framed the issue as issue no.2: “whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession”. 4. The petitioners herein med an application for framing additional issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC. The same was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order holding that the question raised is covered under issue No. 2. ’ y