...^I-S^-QS, iU r'i 3URT OF CHHATTESGARH AT (etit Defendant N o.1 Writ Pstltion sArt.2271 No.5400 of ZOjj Dr.G.Prabhakar Naidu, S/o Late Shri G.L.Naidu, Aaed about 44 vsars Occupation Govemmeni Doctor R/'o Subhash Nagar, !n fronf of ,VI!an Gondpara Biiaspur (C.G.), si! & District Bilaspur (C.G.) 'v'ersus ni/^;cn.*;4;<v~. rSSiii ii.iS E& f^-srit l\i 2 Taukir Ahmed Qureshi Aged about 38 years, Profession Advocate S/o Late Shri Nazir Ahmed Qursshi Sayed Ahmed Qureshi, Aged about ^ Years Qccupatiors Taxi owner S/o Late Shri Nazir Ahmed Qureshl Both Respondent No.1 & 2 R/o Subhash Nagar, Gondpara, Biiaspur Tehsii & District Bliaspur (C.G.) 3. Habib Ahmed Qureshi Afled about 32 yssrs, OccupatiOR Sepflce S/o Late Maqsod Ahmed Qureshi Rlo Subhssh Nagar,- Gondpara, BHsspur Present R/o Quarter No.1 F Street No.4, Zone 3, Khursipar BhiSa! DiStrlct-Durg (C.G.) 4. AA.^1 G.Pramod Naidu S/o Late Shri G.L.Nsidu Aged about 55 years Occupation Service R/o Priyadarshani Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) it Petitiors undsr Articie 227 of the Constitution of india) Mr.Devendra Pratap Singh, counsei forthe petltlonsr. Mr.Somnath Verma, counsei forthe respondents. (S5: Hon'bie iVir. T.P. Sharma, J.) (14-9-2011) 3y this wrlt petition under Artide 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioner has challenged the iegaisty & propriety of the order dated 10.3.2010 passed by the 1M Civli judge Class-i, Biiaspur in Givii Suit No.8A/'95, whereby the Court beiow has dismlssed the appilcatlon for -^ <inr4»yirM^T •Fi]f;n^ ^\y^ it^i^'^i'F /^? 'frS^t/s v>if!^'i^t.f*,r\irtr'ttf4'"'i?fatirtf^''Viint^' ji^v\ ^y^f^ ifvvre^v iv>f^ ic?i SUiiiKi il iii^U wf i *Jcu<aii ui li ifc^ y%5i.it,SUi isSijUCEfci tusSUi, ui I that piaintiff No.3 has so!d the iand to another person on 25.3.2SX); sl&UI! Uli ^..J.^.^UU^.. 2. I have heard iearned counssi for the parties, perused fhe iiTipugned order, copy ofthe piaint and copy ofwritten statemeni. 3. The prssent dispute Is rsiated to nazul sheet No.27, Plot No.37 and the alieged sale dsed relates to nazul sheet No.26, Piot No.37. 4. Ccnsidering the aforesaid circumsiances, i do not find any illegaiity in the order impugned warranting interference. Consequentiy, the writ petition is !iabie to be dismisssd and it is hereby dismissed. No order Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ?-}"