G^(^tr- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner (Plaintiff) W.P.NO.^5?^ / 2003 ieg i-@ ^Sonal Kumar Jain S/o Dhanya Kumar Jain, aged about 30 years R/o Neora, Tehsil Tilda, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) (Note : The petitioner is alegal .<^\C^ representative of deceased plaintiff Shanti Bai who had originally filed a suit but had died during the pendency of the same. In the order impugned dated 07.07.2003 the name of Shanti Bai has been mentioned, however as she has expired, the petition is Jbeing filed by the legal representative ^ankaj Kumar Jain.) Versus Respondents (Defendants) 1. Smt.Archna Jain Widow ofLate Shri Manoj Jain aged about 33 years, R/o Sasaholi, Tehsil Tilda, Dist : Raipur- (C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh.^yO^ ^l^c^ iv. <-Ci - .L 2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 37T^T^T t^ri^siit^ 5bHi°^ ~<-li^<1 \ .-—.• '•.. ? ^-^ ./- "~^.- '-4' ^^ ^ii^i^, ^'al^4!^ f^TRT^ affi^T ^r^ ..^.:^.^.^?(L "fN^T"""""""""""" 'HTO^lT^Hraz 2003 3?T^T ^RITW^TT rejec|ting rt4ad 24.09.2003 Heard Shri P. Diwaker, coun^ei By this wrst petition under India/the petitioner has chalkng^d by the 3rd Additionai District No.4/2003, by which the learned the misceiianeous appeai fiied by Ciyi! Judge, Class-I, Raipur, fiied under Order 39 Rutes 1 &2 The learned Civii Judge vic|e application of the petitioner on tlji mad^ out in favour of l4ie petition^t irreparabJe loss is ateo not made by the petjtioner, the oppellate the triGi Court. The learned point out any iilegajity or infirmit^ 227 of the Constitutjon of India, to Interfere with the concurrent the Court below exercises its juH Court, or ©xceededthe .jurisdicticjn thsn this Court is entitled to in+e order, Th©barned coun3@! for th< <=hi^id41^ WR^ff ^ t^t <Fsi^l< '^'-S^TH^iT^T tei for the petitioner. ^ticle 226/227 of the Constitution of the opcfer dated 07.07.2003 passed P'udge, Raipur, in Misc. Civii Appeaf ^dditionat Di^trict Jud9e has rejected 1-he petitioner against the order of 1 the appiication of the petitjoner wi-tn Section 151 6f th®Cr.P.C. order Annexure P-6, rejected the le ground that no prima faci^ ca^e i^ ifer and the baldnce of convenifince and »|ut. On cyped in fsvour of application also affirmed the order passed by for the petitioner is not abte to in the impugned orcter, Under ^rticle <|+iis court has very limited Jurisdiction ji'ndings of both the Courts beiow. If jh^diction, which do not vest in that or pass any ordar contrary to law, iterfere with the subordinate Cburt's i^petitioner is not able to pojnt out a^ oUt Colirt cou^sei inTer: T XI-HC-22 , ^?T'^[ ^t^Tsfj^I c^^i<^ ^f^a ^oma y •^^r "^j^^^ ^Ti1^4i<o, f®i^ti^^< ^T^T -q^ •^^8T------ WH^H %ff?<^ ^n^i '^ns3T ^Tl^n -^ eb!^f<rilLi1'1 ^l^<3lT ^ 'fe^St iFsl^K ^T^^TO^^T to how th©.subordinate Court fail^d to ©xercisethe Jurisdiction vested In it or exer'cised th? juMsdiction, ^hich is not vested in it or passed the order in disregard of the law. Thefefore, I do not find any substance in +he writ p^tsfion and it is accordin^Iy/dismi^sed. hiow^var, th^ tearnad coungeffor 1+ie petitioner sybmit^ directed to expedite the h<2arin9 of In view of this order, that the trjai Court b©directed to expedite the prQceedings of ciyil ^ui^ : Having heard the iearned c^unse! for the petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstcjincss of the case, the tria! Court is fcivil ^uit. M.(W.)P.No.2727/2003 and I.A. No.8866/2003standdisposedof. Par+ies are entitled for c&rti^kd copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge pft^ ^fe^