t »a K. fssifi K is^y %» ^'1,""" „ ^^ ^' fe.-'" ^••.~ •r~"£.'-'?^ S ^- «»BM"S? Kt-Nkn Sail'>'i.i.'>2. i- t-'"-" " V- (L. '' 1; 1 /rf L/' INJ'HE^ HieH^OURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W.P. (Art.227) N0. Cl St-i of 2010 PETITIONER (^ef^ndmit No.4) Vs RESPON&ENTS (Plaintiff) i0..-". ^ ^^ ^^f9^'^ ^e^y -J</"^" ^^•" w (Defendajit No.ll Ashraf Khan, son of Sh~vs Saeed Khan, aged about 24 years, resident of Maudhapara, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C6). 1. Vic.jtfey alias Sdurav, son of late Sukhnandan alias Rajkumar Agarwal, aged about 14 years, a minor through his legal friend Smt. Rukhmani Devi, widow of Late Janaklal Agarwa], aged about 55 years, resident of Adivasi Colony Road, Kushalpur, Raipur. ^2. Smt. Meena Bai, wife of Late Vanshraj Agarwal, resident of Krishna Nagar, Kota, (Sudiyari Marg, Raipur (C6) ^3. Smt. t)urga Bai, wife of Jeetram Bhath, aged about 33 years, resident of Near (Surga Sadan", Dumartala, P.H. No.104, Raipur (C6) ^-4. Srnt. Chandra Kala Mishra, wife of Baleshwar Mishra, aged about 31 years, resident of Near "Durga Sadan", Dumartala, P.H. No.104, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IN&IA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (5);- (Defendant No.2) {Defendant No,3_l u vt ^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitioner Versus Ashraf Khan Vickey alias Gaurav and Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel for the Detitioner. Int Petition under Articie 227 otthe Constjtutton of Hearfl on admission. (2) The petitioner herein is the defendarst No.4 in the suit preferred by the respondent No.1/plaintiff. (3) The petttionet had preferred an appiication under Order 1 4 Ruie of CPC Tor deleting issue No.5(A) framed by the Srial Court o" thc basis of the pleadings made by the parties. Leamed trigi Court has led the application by menlioning that in view of the pleadings made in para 12 (a) of the plaint, the issue appears to be arising for determination. (4) Leamed counsel Tor the petitioner submits that the said issue is .unnecessary in view of the provisions contained in The Transations (Prohibition) Aet, 1988 and the irial Court has not properiy appreciated the pleadings made by the parties. - (5) In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed sny error in refusing to delete issue No.5(A). The question as to whether or not such question in Tact arise befci'/een the parties can be ar.swered by the triai Court at the end of the trial. In any case, the \ petftioner/defendant No.4 will have an opportunfty 'n the couree of trial to convince the trial Court that the issue should be decided in his -^- favour on the basis of tegal provisions, the petitioner herein, in no way, ! trial Court to delete issue No.5(A), (6) The instant petition fited under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India, faiis and is hereby dismiss p,ashantKumarMishra Judge h