.•.•^;:.'wft<l^ ^•)i.s;^..t-"- •^^'•sv"w lit'' c 'c ?•• ••' '.;,»s* ..lu^^'' €) IN THE HON'BIE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARHY CAtt^7^ ^ ^ an Writ Petition r^ No. S6 ^3 Of 2008, PETITIONER PLAINTIFP .^t^C//"/ ."/" ^^wx ^•^•^^•" RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS -^- ^ ^ ^ ^' .€^ o ^ Q'"' / Sukhdev,son ofLate Narottam Yadav, Aged about 28 years, Caste Rawat, Oceupation Agricultufist, resident of Village Mahasamrind, (Ambedkar Chowk Tumgaon Road) Tahsil and Disti-ict Mahasaniund (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS Sandeep Kumar Chandrakar, son of Bhawarlal Chancirakar, aged 23 years, Caste Kurmi, resident ofWardNo. 13, Purani Basti Mahasaimmd, Tahsil and District Mahasamimd (Chhattisgarh), PuniaBai Yadav, widow of Late Narottam Yadav, aged 72 years, resident of (Ambedkar Chowk Tumgaon Road) Mahasamund, Present resident of In the house of Shyam Yadav (Railway employee), Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), State Qf Chhattisgarh, Through CollectQr Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). . PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA |[T-r --;.'f .^ti--%%t., '/••< tE!3fs'^ ? 't .-'°SS-HG—78 ^SEf "4|4||(f4, »Kl+f<l(o, fqdK-iy iO^.C^..^).......^..3^.... 3n^?i TT5R> SHSTB'^I'feW? ! 'MTStI^lgnN? t?ii<il^41i ^11*1^ ^ fs^ ^KR S.B. Hon'ble Shi-i Justice N.K. A lS.Oo.2009 Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advoc for tae petitioner. Shri JA Lohani, Advocate fo None for the respondent No. Shri Satish Gupta, D; State/respondent No. 3. $y way of this petition, the dated 17.06.2008 (Annexure P/6) District Judge, Mahasamund, ir whereby, the application, filed by t 33 Rule 1 of CPC has been dismi the notification dated 01.04.83 i: under Section 35 ofCourt Fee ActJ The main contention raised petitioner is that, the trial court ou| tenns of provisions contained in not been done and passed the consideration the notification issu^ Section 35 of Court Fee Act, wi^ quashed. ate with Shri JK Gupta, Advocate respondent No, 1. 2 though notice.ssrved, Govt. Advocate for the ^etitioner is chaUengmg the order , passed by the First Additional Misc. Civil Suit No. 02/07, lie petitioner/plaintiffunder Order ssed by taking into consideration ssued by the State Government by the counsel appearing for the ^ht to have directed an enquity in rder 33 of CPC but the same has impugned order by taking into d by the State Govemment uoder ich is illeeal and deserves to be .....••''('"^' ii;fej[Si& 1 '& ^1SS%. 4 sy XI-HG—78 3T!^i ^I'feTOT CTa^gnira' Sah' ~S^\ "lii'i<i<'i<Li, eitily'ie, fqciiyy.i 3n^iTR^T (' Wlf?Pfts( T:iTTOf •?ft^-tfsi^R ^atfirasn^i At tais stage, counsei for b( ofjustice would be sub served if application of the petitioner/plais CPC, afresh after affording due o; and to decide the same in accordai Prayer is allowed. If is directed that the trial c petitioner/plaintifS fiied under C affording due opportunity of hea shall proceed to decids the same underOrder33ofCPC. With the above observatioi ^th the parties fairly submit that interest the trial eourt be directed to decide the Itiff, filed under Order 33 Rule 1 of (portunity ofhearing to both the parties itce with law. ^urt shall decide the application ofthe jrder 33 Rule 1 of CPC, afi-esh after |ring to both the parties and thereafier in accordance with lavv. as envisaaed and the order dated 17.06 •! 17 n<; T 1S Interim relief graafed eariie and direction this petition is allovved quashed. No order asto costs. stands vacated. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge f