HI§H €GE§RT £3? CH%£&TT§$GARH A? EELASPUR $3 : HGNI'gLE §HRE J§ST§CE PMTE§KER EEE'WL5gKER wy. rm. (327% agawzms ?ETETION UNDER &RTICLE 227 OF THE CON$TETUTIQN OF ENDEA Appeax&nce: m H B Agrawal Sr Advocate Wlth qhm Pankaj AgvawaJ, com1se1 {01‘ tha pemmmler bhn 91afu11 Bnarat coun$el +0; respondsnt No. 1, Nana for mspoadsm No.2, though sewsci. WWMQWER 1. Ram Prasaé Agrawal. son of DVFENDANT NC), l Moiilal Aglawal agad 72 ix: 2 wars, re may: 0‘: f‘aiij “ins, Rajnzmdgaog {Cu} '2. S1113. Kailash Bai, Wife af Shri Ram Prasail Agrawa}, aged 65 ysars, m$iii€nt of Ganj LIL—116, Rajnamégaog {CG} Vet’w RESFON§ENTS 1. Gevimi Prasati Agrawal, son of Lat€ Shri Hewalal Agrawal, agecl 73, resiémlt Om‘ginai resident of ViBage Musra, Tahsii Dongargarh, .Addmss idough Ramesh Kumar Agrawai, Street No.29, Qr. No. 16-A, Secmr-S. Bhilai, Prssent reSident of Awasthi Lodge, Rajnmdgacn (CG) PLMNTIFF 2. Mulchanci Agrawal, SOIL 0f Motilal Agrawal, aged 65 yearS, r€sid€nt of Sahdeo Nagar, Rajnandgaon (CG) DEFENDANT NO. 3 QRAL @RDER ‘ (66.04.2aogg ‘ The ch enge J1 r1115 wn" we mam ‘5, thL elder dated Odl $008 p ss€d bv the ‘canmd C1v1l Judge Class H Dcngargarh, nxstL Rajllandgaou (Cm I whareby tbs application f11ed by the defandant under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of fhe CPC has been c£ismissed. 2. According to 1ean1ed ccunsel for the petitioner, the application filed. under Orcier 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil i3rocedure read with Section 151 of the CFC, though has been partly allowed but his prayer for disrm‘saal of suit or returu of plamt has wrougly been rejected. He further H/ submits that the prayer for deciding jurisdiction of the case and iixation of m‘oper court fee should ilave been decided by framing prelimmaly issue. 8. i have heard Xeamed counsel for the petitioner in detail 3110’. have perused the order The relief a ‘ sought by the penmoner 1n the present writ petition can be (leaded b) the mal Court after &ammg pioper issues md penmtunv both the parties Lo lead ev1dencc NO pleJudice whatsoever has been caused to the petltloner by the order impugned and he will get suf‘lcient opporttmi‘Ly to present all his factual arid legal points before the tn l Court Further he W111 get opportunity to lead his evidence on toe bas1s of line issues framed by the trial Court. 4V ’T‘he scope of interference 1n a peunon undei Armcle 22: of the Consotuhon of India cannot be stretched to the l Suguna 1‘ W5 " axtmlt of interfering in a matter like th in this respcct is well settlcd. 5. I do not find any illegaiiiy in the order impugned. Accordingly, the petition is dismissmd. A/»V,,(Ar//N/V//Ax yritinker , I A/x/vga/f ,/ 7‘7»; Diwake’ /