s r gygmd'gg I RT RH I‘I THE HIGH COU OF CHHATTISGA BILASPUR ' ‘ Writ Petition (C) No. é§7# 200 4 6 etitoner / mt. Nisha Agrawal, 39 Year D‘O. 3 o Niranan Aréwal, MIG 366 S d r ec. 1, Dinayal UP Nagar, Raipu espondents/ / 1. Nima Marketing Enterris,, R pe DH & Is P h er 3 D rop. Cocem of Nirmu Consum are Ltd, Red. Office @ Basemen’ shraf ROa m ous ba . s. ai mbe Aec ersi Fir / Ni l / ll g ‘e'titioner and 3—4 are partner 0 f . - Co ‘ram—Mlcha uilin, ulchow aiu Niya He, Ahmedad / 2 M/ I Ay gny, Partnhp m 3'. rapjan Agrawa 4. Rama Arawal P 21 24 / ‘Sukhund Bdg Fk, .V Rpr Jorapara r PErIrIaIv U/Akr. 227 OF THE‘COIvsrIrurIaIv» Pi/ S s JN W/ j g , VERSUS C g t» Am‘i dj, . , W XI-HC—22 padma 12. 12.2006 On being men‘rioned, ‘rhe maffer- is faken—up for hearing. Shri Raja Sharma, co .mse! for The pe‘ri'rioner. None for 'rhe respon en'l's. Heard. Pe1'i1'ioner has quesTi ned validi'fy of fhe applica‘rion filed by 'rhe decree ho1der under Order XXI, Rule 66 of fhe CPC and order dafed 28.10.2006. Pe‘ri‘rioner as given oppor‘runi‘ry To con‘l'esf fhe applica‘rion, but he did no even file his reply. Therefore, in The aEsence of his reply, The pplicaTion filed by The decree holder was allowed and aTTached pro erTy was ordered To be sold by public aucTion. In These circumsT ces, no error appears To be commiTTed by The execuTing CourT on Th record ThaT requires any inTerference. However, if The peTiTioner as any grievance regarding The applicaTion filed by The decree holder, she ‘may raise her objecTions in appropriaTe manner before The execuTing CourT. WiTh The aforesaid d recTion, The peTiTion is dis osed o CerTified copy as per rules. Sd/- Vijay Kumar Shrivastava Judge (@W) r<)/ i n