^ .s. If f' ".s:.,. 'jj ^/ it^ ^.S^ PETITIONER/: (Plaintiff) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.277 of 2011 Devlal Dewangan, S/o Shri Bhuneshwar Dewangan, aged about 58 years, R/o Village Supela, Post Semra, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Versus 1. Smt. Radha Bai Sahu, aged about 36 years, W/o Kamleshwar Sahu, Sarpanch Viilage Panchayat Supela, 2. Sudama, aged about 35 years, S/o Gangaram Sahu, aged about nof known, Village Samiti Treasurer 3. Rajaram Dewangan, aged about 60 years, S/o Sarjuram, 4. Tejram, aged about 35 years, S/o Raj'aram Dewangan, 5. Ramnarayan, aged about 32 years, S/o Rajaram Dewangan, 6. Chandrika, aged about 55 years, S/o Tukaram Sahu, 7. Jugul (Died & deleted) 8. Smt. Purnima, aged about 32 years, W/o Jawahar Sahu, Panch Village Panchayat Supela, 9. Jairam, aged about 50 years, S/o Tetku Yadav, 10. Narayan, aged about 35 years, S/o Bisru Sahu, 11. S.mt. Hembai, aged about 32 years, W/o Jhumuk Sahu, 12. Smt. Bisakha Bai, aged about 30 years, W/o Indrajeet Sahu, 13. Smt. Kumari Bai, aged about 32 years, W/o Banwali Yadav, 14. Panna, aged about SSyears, S/o Jugul Sahu, Up-sarpanch Village Panchayat, Supela, 15. Smt. Kumari, aged about 40 years, W/o Pati Ram Sahu, 16. Dwarika, aged about 45 years, S/o Kundan Sahu, Panch, Village Panchayat, Supela, 17. Nemsingh, aged about 35 years, S/o Sukhru Sahu, 18. Bholu.aged about 45 years, S/o Punau Sahu, 19. Shardacharan, aged about 36 years, S/o Punarad Sahu, Panch Village Panchayat, Supela, 20. Smt. Girija, aged about 32 years, W/o Bhagwati Sahu, Panch, Village Panchayat, Supela, 21. Smt. Malti, aged about 34 years, W/o Uderam Sahu, Panch, Village Panchayat, Supela, 22. Smt. Rajkumari, aged about 35 years, W/o Vishnu Dewangan, Panch, Village Panchayat, Supela, 23. Sahdev, aged about 45 years, S/o Banshi Yadav, 24. Sanat Kumar, aged about 45 years, S/o Shiv Dewangan, 25. Smt. Chameli, aged about 40 years, W/o Dashelal Dewangan, Panch, Village Panchayat, Supela, 26. Guha, aged about 45 years, S/o Shravan Sahu, 27. Komal, aged about 50 years, S/o Charan Sahu, Village Samiti President, 28. Daulal, aged about 50 years, S/o Ramlal Sahu, 29. Rekhram, aged about 35 years, S/o Narottam Sahu, 30. Deendayal, aged about 38 years, S/o Firangi Yadav, Panch, Village Panchayat, Supela, 31. Bhukhan, aged about 55 years, S/o Gambhir Sahu, Ex-Sarpanch, 32. Budharu, aged about 35 years, S/o Bodhan Sahu, Panch, Village Panchayat Supela, 33. Parmanand, aged about 35 years, S/o Bhukhan Sahu, 34. Bhagchand, aged about 25 years, S/o Shiv Sahu, 35. Rohit, aged about 32 years, S/o Bhanwar Dhruv, Panch, Village Panchayat, Supela, (?•> • 36. Rajkumar, aged about 36 years, S/o Bhawarsingh Dhruv, 37. Moolchand, aged about 45 years, S/o Kundan Sahu (wrongly mentioned as Moolchand, aged about 25 years, S/o Shiv Sahu in impugned order), 38. Ganesh Dewangan, aged about 35 years, S/o Firanta Dewangan, 39. Sajivan Sahu, aged about 35 years, S/o Kartik Sahu, All are Resident of Village Supela, Post Semra, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 40. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Dhamtari (C.G.) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. P.P. Sahu, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, counsel for respondents No.1 to 6 and 8 to 39. Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.40. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (11-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 13-12- 2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Misc. Civil Appeal No.10/2010 reversing the order dated 11-9-2008 passed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Kurud, in Civil Suit No.50A/2008, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-11 has granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner herein which has been reversed by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari on the ground that the suit as framed was not maintainable before the trial Court in terms of Section 80 of the CPC and Section 108 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 2. By reversing the order passed by the trial Court, learned Additional District Judge has not committed any illegality requiring any interference exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, though the petitioner is at liberty to comply the provisions of Section 80 (2) of the CPC or to delete the State as party respondent. No order as to costs. ~§ j/. ^ T-P.Sharma ' 1 Judge