ingle Bench:- Hon'bleShnJusticeSatishK.Aanihotri 17 Piaintiff R^^nrindfflirstR^. '•^^-^ ^rf'^^3 {l4us'^».e £^-^li ' 2 Sampatram, Aged 47 years, (approximately) R/o. Viiiage Bhurkhabhat, P.s. Deori, Tehsll-Doundilohara, DistrictDura(C.G.) Versus Registrar, (Birth-Death) and Thana incharge, Deori, District- Durg (C.G.) District 'Pla.nning and Statistics Officer, and District Registrar (Birth.Death), Durg (C.G.) VlilsursiTi, Agod, 12 Yoars (approximatety) Through his guardian Ganeshram S/o. Shatrughan Aged 35 years, Caste-Haiba, R/o. yjiiage- Khaira, P.0. Malighori, Tehsi!- Baloa', District-Durg (C.G.) Present Adress :- Viiiaae- Shurkhabhat, P.O.n Suregaon, . Tehsil Doundilohara, Dlstrict- •Durg(C.G.) Manikinl, S/o. Shri Varandas, Caste-Devdas, Presently 'iltage Kotw/ar) Agsd 52 years, ViiSaae-Bhi <^ Tehsii-Doundiiohara, Police Chowki-Suregaon, Thana- Oeori, District-Durg (C.G.) Stete of Chhattisaarh. Through Coilector, Durg (C.G.) 'resent:- Smt Fouzia Mirza, counsel for the petitioner. Ku. Deepaii, Pandey, Panei Lav»-y'erfor the State. |tn f.r.r'l 1ft. By this petition under Artic'e 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges th.e t©gaiity and validity of the order dated 18.01.2007(Annexure P-7) passed by the Second Civi! Jutige CSass-IS, Balod, in Civii suit No. 18rA/2006. v ./-; 2) The facts in hutshe!! are that the petitioner filsd an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civi! Procedure (for shori " fhe Code'"; dated 23.11.2006 in the pending civil suit No.19-A/2006 for a direction to initiate appropriate action against the Government Officer or G.overnment Advocate for filing false affidav.it in the Court. 3) The. respondent No.1 filed hls reply denying all the ailegations ms.de by the petitioner stating that the petltion seeklng initiation of act.'on against the respondent be dismissed. Learned Civi! .Judge afier having considered the averments made in the application as weii as in the rsply and having considered the sub.mlssions of the learned counsei forthe parties he!d as under: 'S'<-1 yth'<u! Tf Notice to adiiiit document ' uTT 3FiTcp-T]'<n7T Tu«i.i2.icf3]<;l •SI'~-Sl cTlSltl q? ?T. 9^7°T ^. 110/94 S'^l'IK-i] w. 17/53 d?T r3??Trr S.TT 13-CT gTsTsfRT 9. 1 ^ Si'wlcpi'-; fq^T s^H q^TTc^jT W''WTpRT q^ q^T W7 ^T ttT^a TT7 fr?TT t T?fT 73^ STcT^fq' Zri-^TT '§' cfRj Z'7T T^i' 'g^FTRfT q5T . OTTf&KT q^f ?7T-r<-TT? t L'sf^TT^t w1 ?pt f^ft .^<n^5T qf ^''tcCT? zrr q^T ^ f$ra- i|TcZ| ^ f^ZjT ^rr ^cf^Tl ^'cRTof ir ^ ^ ^.jf^ ^ t t^? ^TTHcfSUf 3)T^'..gT3T fe? TTt f^ft ^pSFT ' T^ ^Tra' 3TO7TT H XM[ 1T§?T,?T 3KT: qT91 ^5 3iX<^T ^? Tfram ^ yiaciiqi %1 ?T ' ?mi^T sffSTcTWT rR cRT? ^ NT?T cRT •WTR ;-T 6H V ^e- STFq^T WTgn IH ^ 7pRDT 200/- ('tTT ^t ^.) ^ I^RCZTZ| IR ^T- ," I'K'W TcfT<f] uTTtTT ^ 1 4) I have heard tearned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the petition and documents appended thereto. 5) Having regard to fhe facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Second Civil Judge class II is perfectly.valid, just and proper. !n a case, where such appiication is made for tata'ng action against a party or the Government Advocate, the Civii Court has futl jurisdiction to reject the appiication on merit wlth costs. 1 have not found any infirmity, illega!ity or jurisdictione:!. error in the impugned order. 8) Thus, ^thls petition is dismissed in exercise of superi/iso"/ iurisdiction of this Court as having no merit. No order as to costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge