IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘TTISGARH AT BILASPUR ' _ ' w. p. (227) No. gé$ OF 2010 $ENGLE BEN$E§ Smt‘ Silki Lal wd/o Late Subodh Kumar Lal, aged about 60 years, Shri Ashish Lal S/o late Subodh Kumar Lal, aged about 4O years. 3; Shri Anil Lal S/o late Shri Subodh Kumar La], aged about 38 years. Ashrita D/o late Shri Subodh Kumar Lal, aged about 3O years, All R/o Quarter no. 4/1, Street no. 39, Sectora8, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil 85 District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS l. Ajay Chauhan s/o late Shri Vipat Chauhan @ Deepeshwar Chauhan, aged about 42 years, R/o Rajiv Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil 8e District Durg (C.G.). Defendant 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Durg (C.G.). ”k . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONERS ¥ 1,. Defendants xi Plaintiff 1] PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS:~ As given above in the cause title. w PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:— _ 1 $GH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 5869 of 2010 Smt. Silki Lal and others. Versus _ RESPONDgNTs : . Ajay Chouhan and another. $ WRjT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLaJJ7 9F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ($inqlg Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Agarwal. J.) Present : Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counse! with Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, counsel for respondent No.1. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the‘State. 0%hAL ORDER (Passed ’on 04 day of January, 201 1) Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, order dated 09-08-2010 passed by 11‘“ Additionai District Judge, (F.T.C.). ,Durg in Civil Suit No.02-A12007 rejecting the petitioners‘ application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC")‘has been assailed. 3. The facts in nutshell are as under: The respondent/plaintiff ’ instituted a suit for specific performance [of contract against the petitioners. The petitioners have appeared before the Trial Court and have filed their written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court on 10-09-2009 framed issues. The issues were shown to the parties, none of them had raised any objection. Only thereafter, the petitioners have preferred an appiication under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for’framing of additional issues regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff regarding performance of contract under Section 16 (C) of Specific Relief vv lPIainti Act. Also regarding the fact whether or not, time is essence of contract. The above application was rejected by the trial Court vide . impugned order on the ground that the proposed questions were covered under the issues aiready framed. 4. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having perused the pleadings of the parties and issues framed, l am of the considered opinion, that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality/material irregularity in rejecting the above application leading to manifest injustice to the petitioners. No doubt, the learned Trial Court will certainly look into the. question of readiness and willingness of plaintiff and'to the effect whether time is essence of the contract or not in accordance with law and in the‘light of the question raised in the pleadings by both the parties. 6. Further, the petitioners are not remediless and the order impugned can very well be assailed by them in the appeal which may be required to be tiled by the petitioners in case the suit is decided against them, under Section 105 of CPC. 7. It isewell settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, should refrain itself from interfering with the o'rder passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby rejected. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Kvr