ta.a^) Writ Petition^e-l'No. ?^^of 2009 /f.. - M/s Paras Vanaspafi Pvt. Lfd. A company registered under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1 956 Having its Regisfered Office at 21 / 360, Ganj Para Raipur Chhattisgarh-492001 RR.!*io. pl'esWtBdb),^..' ti3ted..., ^••r ^ K &^ iMii v/ Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T&D) Cooperative Federation Limited, having ifs registered Office af A-25, VIP Estafe, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Rgipur (C.G.j, Through its Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T&D) Cooperative Federation Limited, District Union, Lowerghat, Jaspur Nagar Unit No. 7, Jaspur Nagar, Chhatfisgarh Throdgh its Managing Director 3. The State of Chhaftisgarh, Through the Principai Secretar/, Departmenf of Forest, DKS, Bhawan Mantraiava, Raipur (C.G.) In The Matter Of:- m-i'S is » KMI BiB BM HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bech: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petitton (227t No.7070/2009 Petitloner Respondents Versus M/s. Paras Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest ProdtK»<TSD) Cooperative Federation Limited and <rthers. Shri Anktt Singhal, counsel fw the petitioner. Shri Sumit Venna, Panel Lawyer for respondent No-3/State. Writ Pet'rtion under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (06.01.2010) Heard on I.A. No.1 for taking acMitional documents on record. (2) I.A. No.1 is allowed and the acklitional documents are taken on record. (3) Hearct on admisston. (4) The present pet'rtioner has preferred a suit on 28.10.2009 in the Coun of District Judge, Jashpur seeklig relief fw declaration wfth termlnation of purchase agreement dated 21.05.2009 by the plaintiffs and notice dated 14.08.2009 are valkl and to direct defendant No.2 to refund the security deposit of Rs.1,11,10,000/- along wSh interest @ 16% per annum . The plaintiffs have ateo moved an applicaUon under sub-section (2) of Section 80 of C.P.C. seeking leave ofthe Court for flling the plaint without semng any n<rtice as required by siA-sectton (1) of Sectton 80 ofthe C.P.C. (5) By the impugned order dated 12.11.2009, the leamed Court below has rejected the plaint'rffs' applications under sub-section (2)oT Section 80 of the C.P.C. on the ground that the present is not a matter whgre acute uigency is present. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the application for temporary Tr.<«p»mff >IUjll,.M,..^.LU. . .^.••a?"i%•»>- •/"^ '^ ^ !11^1 -A- injunction was moved and in the event forfeiting of the secur'ity deposit takes place durir^ the periodof two months, he shall suffer irreparable loss, therefore, plaintiff should have been allowed to file the suit without notice required underSectton80(1)oftheC.P.C. Intheqiiniwtofthis Court, the present is not a case where jurisdictton under Artfcle 227 should be exercised. The ptaint itself fited on 28.10.2009. Two months have already expired thereafter. In the course of hearing, leamed counset Tor the petitioner has informed the Court that nrtice under Section 80(1) of C.P.C. has already been issued to the proposed defendant on 20.11.2009. Barely 14 days are remaining before the expiry of the periwl of two months. For this reason also there is no case for interference with the impugned order passed by the leamed Court below. The writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Con^itution fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd//- PrashantKumarMishra IW SS^-s.