N THE HIGH COURT or cHnATTi $l 3- Nirmala' Arthar 59 years, > I s W.P.mo. c173) gg§g OF _ ’/’1. udgnt Debtors \ W/o Late aged about S/o Late about Sanjay es, Arthar James, aged 39 years, Sanju @ Guddu, Arthar James, 36 years, Shashi Jaues, Arthar James, 42 years, ’All R/O‘Near Nahar Nali, Kelabadi, Durg, Tahil and District Durg (CG) /2. S/o Late aged about S/o Late aged about Smt. Chandralekha, W/o Late Robinson James, Aged about 66 years, Ku. Neel James, D/o Late Robinson Ja Aged about 31 years, Amit Kumar‘James, S/o‘Late Robinson James, Aged about 29 years, ESPONDENTS 7 ,Plaintiffs/Decree olders All R/o Dawada _Colony (Laxmi Nagar) ,I ‘ Near Pachpedi Naka, Beside DSP JR Thakur, Tikraara, Raipur, Tahsil ad istrict Raipur (CG D ) Smt. Rabika, /o Rajendra Masih, Aged about 36 years, W R/Vo Basant Vihar Colon, y Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspu (CG) ‘ 'Smt;>Leenadas, W/o Rameshdas, Aged about 34 years £¥A Jhé L s R H u mes, p n r x , mm MQ .) M.§.T:i&!“ 2008 umhm'(1qiaaau) mw fs¢m «imam *mm aw wNw-.w,anw* ‘S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice N.K. ’ 31.08.2009 Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Adv Heard on admission. The instant petition {is directed against the°order dated 01 07 2009 (Annexure P/1) ’ p ed by the Vilth Additional District Judge (FTC) Durg, in executi n case No 01-A/06 whereby and _whereunder the appllcatlon for revrew preferred by the petitioners ,under Order 47 Rule 1 rea With Section 114 of CPC was dismissed by the Executing Co rt The brief facts of the cas are that the respondents/plaintiffs - instituted a suit for declaration nd partition against the petitioners ' ‘ before the trial court The suit roperty was a house and land as a" part of house The Trial court assed the decree for partition Ant a execution petition was fled te for the petitioners. that obiection was raised by the petitioners that under section 4 of CPC the CIvTcourt does not? have the jurisdiction to execute he decree as the land in dispute is agricultural land The trial court after he ing the petitioners dismissed the application on the ground that he swt property is house property and is not agricultural land.’T ereafter, Vide impugned order, the trial Court also dismissed there iew preferred by the petitioners: WWWW—Fsbs—i 1 [zoos—1,00,0im. A arwal o a s 33’” .. . . mm..ummu; .......................-. ..............vi zoo amw (W) , xamiuwm mw wm *mm / . I have heard the couns appearing for the petitioners and perused the documents andire In the considered opinio of this court, the trial court has ‘not committed any illegality or irre larity leading to manifest injustice so asto invoke extraordinary ju isdiction of this court under Articl 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle f law that this Court in exercise of its supemsory jurisdiction und r Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from nterfering With the order passed by the Court below except in suc cases where perversity, illegality, ‘Irregulanty or jurisdictional err r is writ Iarge on the face of thei record which is not in the pres tcase The petition has no m rit and the same Is accordingly dismissed No order asto cost N.K.Agarwa‘ Judge Sahu rds. v .4 wwwwia-iia—4s/9s—Lr 1 /2oos—1,oo,ooo. e