¢. ,w1, Q . _, ‘ WWW EEENEH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER : DEFENDANT No.2 PETITIONER : DEFENDANT NO. { RSPONDENT : PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT : ‘ DEFENDANT NO. 1 WRIT PETITION (Art.227) No. \ W E7} OF 201 1 1. Shyam Kumar Arora, S/o Harikishan Lal Arora, aged about 56 years. 2. Smt. Neelam Arora, W/o 3 Shyam Kumar Arora, aged about 50 years. Both the petitioners are residents of Main Road, Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (CG). ’ Versus L/Vlmal Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shrawan Kurnar Agrawal, resident of Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (CG). 2. Shrawan Kumar Agrawal, S/o Loknath Agrawal, resident of Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA E ‘ ! S AR W. P. (227) N0. 1437 OF 2011 PETlTiGNERSI : Shyam Kumar Arora and another (Defendants) . Versus {w RESPONDENTS : Vima! Kumar Agrawal and another. WRKT PET‘TION UNDER ART¥CLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri N.K. Aqarwal, J.) Present : Shri B.D. Guru, counseiforthe petitioners. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16‘“ day of March, 2011) Heard. 2‘ ‘The instant petition under Artioie 227 of the Constitution of indie calls in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 11—02-2011 passed by Xii Civil Judge, Class-ii, Raipur‘in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2OG8 whereby the petitioners‘ application under Order 7 Ruie 11 ofthe CPO has been dismissed. 3. According to Shri Guru, earlier suit fiied by the respondent on the same cause of action was dismissed on 07-01-2008 as the same was not hted through his natural guardian by the plaintiff who was minor at that time, and, therefore, the instant suit filed on the same cause of action is not maintainable. 4. l have heard teamed counsel for the petitioner. 5. As per Order 4 Rule 3 plaint shall not be deemed to be duty instituted unless it complies with the requirement specified in sub-rule 1 & 2. Above provision in no way debars plaintiff from filing of fresh suit after correcting the errors. Shri Guru failed to point out any provision which prohibits fiiing of fresh suit, if any suit is dismissed in View of provision contained under Order 4 of the CPC. w k) 6. In View of the above, I do not find any megaifty in the passed by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court under Artioie 227 of the Constitution of india. 7. it is weii settied principle of law that this Court, in exercise of ite supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lnclia, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such oases where perversity, illegality, irregularity'or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case 8. Accordingiy, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge .