•II ^.';:.i%iS; .* IN THE HIGH COtIRTOFeHHAT'nSGcARHA'I'BHASPlJR WritPetituHi Nb.S63^/20Q4 EETmONESS <s 1, Il%wgay"Das]Sfaliar, S/ o SIui Taba Das Mahar, agediabout35years. ^'".A; : •&;:;':;':. ._: ^ ^^^ Sbyam Bai, .S' J^O . l .•-<-.':« ^.•^ .^.',::..;a'..:_. 1 .. -:._. --^ '. <^"i<^r S^oShnDigvijayDasMalutf, .**;'•'•''' • . :• •'•' ;'-"'- ./-''..:.' .' ••:'. .'.' ':.•",.• :.'' '.-: '• ' : ••• •: • ' :' " ' ftged;about3t yeara. . Bo^R/o^llflge-Dnran Bfaeai, ^MS|Scl3RaMtts'y:.::"': •:';••:: •:" • ''::'; S^|.atiei®3at|Ratli^aliU, 1 .fl^djialMiut-:.52^years,. •;.:;..,.| I^ffiSfiUage-DnranBhedi, TBl^sfl- Iteaaga^arh,; 1@i^i^'®^tianilgaoQ(e.(3.). ^ff^fc-l.;:;-0amtjf&' ®t§Ss|!ofGh]:i,attisgarti, iy^i^itt: ^iPil^' ^y^-^-'s^ ^yz gSBga^adigais:Rt,(€;.C!-^. 'l;'':i::iii;-]DeSM).dfflit-"!: [|jj?!iW^m@ WiWlffiSB^@^IB:iiHn^ll^S^ 1^ Writ_PetJt!pn PETiTIONERS RESPONDENTS Digvijay Das Mahar and another Versus •<^rtjk Ram & snother. WRST PETiTION UNDER ART1CLE 227 OffTHE CQNSTjTUION_OE (SB: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J. Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Shri Prashant Jaiswai, learned Seniorcounsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Basant Dewangan, counse! for resppndent No.1. Mr. Arvind Dubey, PL for the State/respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (27.05.2011) With theconsent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 1 Instant petition, fiied under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, cails in question the iegality and proprlefr/ of the order dated 25.8.2004 passed by llnd Civil Judge, Class li, Rajnandgoan in Civil Suit No. 32- A/2003 whereby petitioner's opportunity to fi!e written statement was ciosed and the matter was fixed for plaintiffs' evidence- 2. Learned trial Court closed petitioners' opportunity to file written statement as according to the trial Court the petitioners have failed to file their written statement despite severa! opportunities granted by it. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner failed to point out any illegallty in the order impugned passed by the iearned tria! Court. Undlsputably, petitioners did not file thei.r written statement despite several opportunities granted by the trial Court. Further this petitioh is •pendin'g since 2004 without there being any interim order passed in petitioners' favour. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to th6 every aspects of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, no ground is made out warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of'the Constitution of india. ^ fl 't. • •• L;. ^. . . yy ^v-'y/ '^-^^ ll' ^.ir>~y '•^?.^.,^^?"" 5. it is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering wit.h the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. ^r 6. According.ly, the petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. _.- 7. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge '\.u I f 1 ! l'! w