BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION F2271 N0. - 2^ f OF 2011 ll PETITIONER DEFENDANT ^ .^*' ^-<?^>---"" "<&x> ^ \^' '..-•" y ^ ^ Sapan Mukharjee S/o Late Shri Heeralal Mukherjee, Aged about 52 years, Occupation Govt. Service (Deparfanent of Social Welfare) R/o Tikrapara, Bilaspur besides Jugal Kishore Goyal [Ward Member), Tahsil & District - Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF I^MM^ w/' ^ •\ CS /. Sachin Gorakh S/o Soukhilal Gorakh, Aged about 31 years, R/o Tikrapara Bilaspur, Tahsil 8s District - Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQRISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTIQN_OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. l-llGl'l BltiASPUR '--.^/ i ^RHW^Itl©lB227^Ni©.a61©R201'l PETITIONER EiERENDftNT PlM ltlllR Sapan MuklTarjee Versus SactliinGorakh W(RmPE^K^^NBER^RM6l.E2270FTHE ,^w%%.i©o>niiSi-mai]ON^fyNDi^k'^ fSiRdleB6nGt»:"Hyn'ble^SliriN;K.Adafwal..l^ Present : ShnSacMitTSihahRafput.counselfor^hepetitioner. :.l:::.''^::l'^''-.^{Passed::on^|Bm 1-learcl onadmissfon; 2. The In^arrt p^tion i^ dire<^ agairast^^^^te^^ 22-11^10 pa^db^tlifeSec^nd^dditio^ Bllaspur m Civil Su^N<x ^ applicatibn forframing^cifjSaa^or^lssues^^^ Bule50ftheCodeof©ivit;13lSiee3ui^S^ ^s been dismiss^ on the grc^FKl^h^^^ hasalready ISeen clwed ^^^ evidence^and the abbve ofejection was he'ver raised before the dps.ureofplaintiff'sevidence. 3. l-eamed cqunSel forthe petftioner vroutS submit that a plea has bee(T rareed iri the writteri^^^^^ knov^edge, the plaintlff is money lendeF^^m therefbre, the order impugned is per-se ill^ial and desenres tb beset-asicle;,'1::" ':•. . :. ! . ',;; ::•;. :.'..: ::.' :''.:;'. / : ,;1 ': 4. Haying heard ^leamed eo^ ha\nngpeivsedthe6R(erirripugned,ld(^o^findai^subst^^ jn the wnt petition warranting interferenee! in^^^^^e^ extraordiiiary]ul^^!onuruter^rtlele22?of^^ lndia.^lfthepetfti£ eFWOi^(tp1a6^1:fti^e\^enee^^ :^ releyant matenal showing that the ptalntiff is money lender withouttlierebeingahylfeence.certainlytheleamedtrtalCourt whIledeGtding'lheissueno. 1 willlookintotheabovecontention of the petitioner and shalt decide the same in accordanee with law.. ;/ , • : ', '.. ' , :• •, , . :_ - 5. ItisweHsettteclprincipleoflawthatthisCourt.inexercise of its sypervisory juriKliction under Article ^7 of the Constitytionoflndia.shouldrefrainitselfft-ominterfertngwiththe order piasssd by the Court below, except in syeh ci®eswhere perveTSitY.illegality.irregulantyorjurisdlctionaterrorlsw^^ ontheftceofthereGOrd.whichisnotiffthepresentcase. 6. Accordingly, the petition bejng devoid of sub^anee is liabte to be and is hereby rejected. No order astdco^s. ~1 Sd//- N.K.AgrawaI Judge