dr‘/ Siziéa Eanch g IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT B}ASPUR (C.G.). WRIT EETITION UNDER ARTmLE 2 main: v. 27 GF CON$TITUTION OF/ W.P.NO. 424:3 ’ /2005. PETITIC’NER... 4/ mUKUND MOHANI RAJ MANOHAR Son / ‘ ‘ \// ,w o %\j‘ .. ‘H (54%:94 / 0w.”M\)$‘\ys of Shri momgtgiggj Wwgged abouhw‘ years, ‘J‘ai Kiran Beej Bhandar, Anand Bhavan Ganesh Ram Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) M}: ‘faa‘e' 5Z9 ‘ MERSUS. , RESPONDENT... \/_ANANT RA! MAJETHIA aged about 63 . years; ESon of Late Shri Durlabhji Majethia, re8ident of Civil Lines;, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). mmT-a; w{n.m..m.&..3..[.9§“zoo @ anéetm (11mm) mamm mmam mm#ww $Wané21 v ‘ mmma 3mm 9—9—2005 Heard Shri 6. D. VaswaJ i. counsei for "rhe pe‘ri'i'ioner. The peTi‘Honer has pre erred This wri‘f pefi‘mn under Article 227 of fhe Cons+i+u+ion of ndia quesfioning fhe iegaiify, proprie'fy and correcrness of The order da‘red 19-8-2005 (Annexure-P/l) passed . by fhe 5% Civil Judge, Cla 3-2, Raipué‘, in civil suit No.01-A/05 V whereby learned Civil Judge rejecred ihe appiicu‘rion filed by fine Ruie 1A. (s) ef The cm. Erief fae'fs necessary or fhe disposqi of This wri'r petificn are Thaf responden‘r herein filed a civii sui'f againg'i' fhe pe‘ri'rianer for eyiei'ion of fhe diepui'ed- pre ises an +he ground +ha+ fhe dispu'l'ed premises are required reaso y and bonaficieiy for sfnrfing business iaf The son of respondent if‘ren statement has already been fiied ‘ on behaif of fhe defendan‘f/ Tifioner herein. Affer framing of fhe issues, evidence of respond nf has been closed and ‘Hqereaffer evidence of The pe‘iifioner h air-endy adduced evidence peTiTioner herein under 0rder n has eiso commenced in which he has 2 wifnesses and af 1-his siege +he pefifioner herein moved above appiicdfion before fhe Trial Cour'r. The friai Cour'i' rejecfed fhe appii afion on fhe ground fhaf piainfiff has already closed his evidence on fhe pe'l'i‘l'ioner herein has also adduced evidence of 2 wimesses, The fore, documems have been filed of a bela‘l'ed sfage. If has also b n observed ‘l'haf affer perusal of The n i r i e o Irma! aun'ai .. .......§..t§.o§~ . ......... @ mzoo snéwmm' awméstm mam (W) . mmmamsl ‘A&_ documen‘i'a +he Cour'l' rehched are no? necessary for disposui pleading ragar'ding The documen Having heard learned counsel for 'H'ie pefifioner, I have perused The peTifion and The impugned q rder. Lza'med counsei for T ‘ WW#WW $Wm§€r +0 +he‘ conclusion fhaf +hese documen'rs of 'i'he suit Moreover, There is no such is in wri‘H‘en statement e pe'i'ii'ioner has noi' disputed above‘ faci's. However, he eubmif‘red hm' i-wo documents namely one of year 1988 is a no‘rice which was se T by responden'r herein for increasing fhe ran? of 1*he dispu'fed pram ses and second document year 1993, is ‘kte dacumen? whereby join‘r o Bai had filed civii suif, and by wanfs fa esi-ahlish firm“!- respa rent and aiso fhuT/r'espondem c ' I do nof find any suk iearned counsel for 1’he pe‘fi‘rio by; The respondam‘ herein ‘tis already raised ‘Hmse abjec‘i'ian respondem is enTiTled for fili evidence and es‘rablish 'rhis documen? is concerned fha‘f w: iherefore, Thai documeni' has ne much relevance. W ners of the proper-w of ia'ie Duriabhji these daeumen‘i's fhz pefi‘i‘ienzr herein ndeni' is in fhe habi‘i‘ of increasing i412 ione is no1’ enTiTied To fiie civil suiT. Siance in The argumenf advanced by ner. As far as quesTion of filing of sui'i' concerned, The pefi'iianer herein [has s. Ii- is a iegai ques+ion whe'i'her'oniy n9 of The sui'i' or not. He can adduce fact Moreover, as far as second around abeuf 17 ye&rs buck, 1 is sent as back as in i’he year 1988 Le. mam (W) - W mqi$ .. 111200 Li‘H anéeranW ammatm swam-{m 311w /&Z_ In View of fine above -ac+,. I am of The opinion» fha'l’ 141a 1'rial Court has no? commiTTed a y illegaii'ry or material irregulari‘ry by passing fhz impugned order. Therefar‘e, no ,cqse is made ouT far invoking ex‘i'raordinary juri diction under Ar‘ricie 227 of. The ConsTi‘ruTion of India. The NriT pe'ri'rion has no substance, same is . “able 1'0 be dismissed and i? is accordingiy, dismissed. Consequently, M.(W.)P. N9.3462/2005 and I. A, No.7729/2005 sTand disposed cf. mmifwm aiwmsr - Sdl- L.C. Bhad‘oo Judge 3 W5 81’2005 ’ 29,000 ;°@(\ 3 @