69mm HIéH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR N’&Zé»/?§oo£. G Hon’big Shri Rgjeev Gupm, CJ. & Hon’ble Shri Suni! Kumar‘ Sinha, i. Writ Appeai (PR) No‘ 1909/2007 ‘ \ \ Appelian‘rs (No‘n applican‘rs) 1. Biswanm'h Tripafhy, aged abom‘ 47 year's, s/o ia‘l‘e Shri Sushi Ehusan Tripaihy, Direc‘ror' Pos‘fai ’ Services C6. Circle, Raipur (Ga) 2. 3hau Raa Nirr.scri’kar,raged abouf 59 years, s/o Shri Rushijee, 5r. Supfd. Of Post Offices, Durg Division, Civii 'Cen‘rer', Bhilai, Disfr'icf Durg (C.G.) 3. Ram Singh Thakur, aged abau’r 51 year‘sL 's/o Shri Shambhu Ram Thakur, Pas? Ma‘smr, Durg Head Office, burg Versus RESPONDENT (Applican‘f) DM. Dongr‘e, aged abcu’r 47 year's, s/o Shr'i Mangoji Dongr'e, r/o Quar'l'er' No. 9—8, STr‘eeT No.6, Sector-1, Bhilai Nagar, Disfrict Dur'g WM? Appeal U/S 2 of fhe CG. High Court (Appeal ‘ro Division Bench) Ac’r, 2006 Present Shri Bhishma Kinger', Counsei for The appeiiam‘s. None for The respondeni's. Judgmem (7m Eebr'uar‘y, 2GO8) Shri Bhishma Kinger, Counsel for The oppelian‘rs is hear-d on admission. 2. The appellan‘rs have fiied This Wm Appeai againsf The imggugngd judgmgn‘t dared. 31,1209? pg_sgd in ’ w.P.(C) {ugly/2007; 3. Thg pgTiTioners in The wri‘? petition wgre seeking qggshiing of The conifemp? proceedings inii’imed ageins‘r fhem for their aiieged disobedience of The Judgmen‘i’ and decree defied; 6.1IZOQ3 passed in Civil Suit No.131—A/2002 by First Civii Judge Ciass—II, Dur'g. ’ 4, The iear-ned Singie Judge afier ihorcugh consideration of The submissions of learned counsel for ‘rhe peTi‘iioner‘s passed ihe impugned judgmem‘ wii'h the foilowing direciion: “Considering The focis and circumstances of the case, This peiifion is being disposed of wiTh a direc’rion To The peTiTioner's To appear in person before The concerned CourT on The nexT ciaTe of hearing and submiT Their reply To The show cause noTice issued To Them, which shall be decided on iTs own meriTsi Thereof‘ier, The peTiTioners shall be permiTTed To appear Through Their counsel." V. -v 5, Qn due consideration of The submissions of learned counsel for The appellanTs, we are saTisfied ThaT The above quoTed direcTion conTained in The impugned judgmenT is sufficienT To safeguard The inTeresT .‘of The appellanTs/peTiTioners in The moTTeri We] Therefore, do noT find any good ground for inTerference in This wriT appeal. é: The wriT oppeel, Therefore, is liable To dismissed and is G ‘- padma H l hereby dismissed summarily. i Sd/- ‘d Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinhfé Chief Justice fl Judge