m -o . ^'1-7>3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. SJ'AI /' OF 2005 PETITIONER : Judgment Debtor ^^,,Y\. .^^^ 5^ ^y Manoj Kumar Mishra ,S/o Lakhan Lal Mishra aged about 28 years, occupation computer business, resident of Village Bade Mathpara Sarangarh , P.S.and Tahsil Sarangarh , District Raigarh (CG). •PONDENT: VERSUS State Bank of India, constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955, Qentral Office rff^Vl Nariman Point Medamcama, Mumbai, local Head Office, Hoshangabad Road Bhopal, Branch Offlce Krishi Vikas Bank, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG). (Decree Holder) yk WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR WTOTS. ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T3IE CASE a XI-HC-22 3^T ^TPIT^ra'^ ^ftWT^ Rldl^^ ^- 2A ^TO^TT^RT^ w .(^>..MO,.'X~^ ^^ ^"5^< 3T^?T^)T f^rf^w^T ^iW^cT ^T^T^Fcn'W^fN' chi^?d41^ mT^rf^te^i^i^K ^3:rf^T3TT^T 3-8-2005 Shri Y.V. R. Rao, counsel for|the The instant writ petition ha{ Articie 227 of the Constitution of ir and correctness of the order datedl the Additional District Judge, Raigar Brief facts, reievant for the respondent herein, State Bank of nldia amount agaiost the petitioner herei ^i^JO^" ^ dated 9-5-2001 and a decr passed against the petitioner and execution proceeding was filed for that when the respondent failed tc( under Order 21 Rule 30 read withf fi!ed on behalf of respondent for s< jaii, and in pursuance of that, noti^ In response to that, the petitioner| reply. However, executing Court execution proceeding is pending and he is not making any paymentl civil jail, jt is difficult to realize thej Order 21 Rute 30 read with Ordeij further order has been passed thatj of the petitioner herein be obtainedj order has been passed for issu^ executing Courl is required to under Order 21 Rule 40 of ffie~CP: petitioner. i^ been filed by the petitioner under tdia questioning the legality, propriety 11-5-2005 (Annexure-P/3) passed by i|h in execution case No.2-8/01 . |disposal of this writ petition are that i|dia, filed a suit for recovery of the loan In and the said suit was decreed vide ^e to the tune of Rs.1,09,980/- was Ithereafter in the same year the said recovery of the amount. It appears pay decretal amount, an application Order 21 Rule 37 of the C.P.C. was ^nding the petitioner herein to the civil was issued to the petitioner herein. appeared before the Court and fiied leached to the conclusion that as the Igajnst the petitioner since 16-7-2001 therefore, without sending him to the amount,. therefore, application under 21 Rule 37 has been accepted and the estimate of one month's expenses from the district jail Raigarh, and atso mce of vvarrant, and thereafter, the the procedure as envisaged t) urtdertake XI-HC-22 ^TRC-TT^W^ ^^- ^ 3^ET ^si^|<r|^^ ^^^l^, fc|^l^^< 3TT^T^^F ^ 200 3TT^^T^)T f^t^W^T ^RW^TfN' Barve ^ <^' 3n^T^<iT8(K^fN' -^- Iri vie^* 6f the above fact, 1 d|o not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petiti^n is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.2j977/2005 and I.A.No.6684/2005 aiso stand disposed of. <=hl^td<>J1T1 ^l^<rlT ^ f^S ^^K ^)3Tf^TW^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^fe^) c^'