^Mfey: KEMth' c ,C IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 2?(-( g, /2011 PETITIONERS id^ntif-^ •^^ \^/ ^€^y .(h^y^ ^yy / e^~ / / !y / •y/ '^y &- RESPONDENTS ^ra-e^e-Kflta^fi; i^ l.Smt. Kaushilya Devi aged-about 55 years W/o late Mohan lal 2. Lalit Rajput S/o late Mohan lal aged- about 30 years 1. Vijay Rajput S/o late Mohan lal aged- about 28 years, 4. Snat. Jayanti D/o late Mohan lal aged- about 32 years, 5. Snat. Seema D/o late Mohan lal aged- about 30 years, (petidoner no. 4 and 5 through their special power of attomey Vfay Rajput S/o late Mohan lal Rajput) 6.Daulat Ram S/o Rewachand aged- about 42 years, ^-7.Ashish @ Manish S/o late Thakur Ram All are the R/o Sindhi colony Raigarh, Tahsil 85 Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS 1. Chetan Das Rajput S/o late Rewachand Rajput, aged-about 58 years, R/o Kaserpara, Raigarh [C.G.] -2. Shri Banke Bihari Infracom Pvt. Ltd., Through- Director Harvilas Agrawal, S/o Sri Bhola Prasad, aged-about 42 years, R/o Chaitanyaa nagar, Dhimarapur Road, Raigarh, TahsU 8s Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] S.Mukesh Tiwari S/o Sri Kripashankar Tiwari aged-about 33 years, R/o Dugdha Dairy road, Rajiv nagar, Kotara road, Raigarh, Tahsil SsDistt.- Raigarh [C.G.] »Ttlil /' 4. Ajay Agrawal S/o Sri Raj Kumaf Agrawal, aged-about 35 years, R/o Gandhiganj, Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] 5. State of C.G. Through CoUector, Raigarh [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIREC110NS t.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR Writ Petlfrion (227) No. 2718 of 2011 Smt, Kaushilya Devi and othe.n V'ersus Chetan Das Rajput and othe.rs WR1T PETiTIONUNDER ARTICLE 2270F THF CONSTITU10N QF Mr. Sanjay Patei, counsel for the petnioners. Mr. S.R.J. Jaisvval, PL for the Stste/respondent No. 5. '.07.2011) Heard on admission. 1. Vide impugned order the trial Court aflowed the respondents' application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofthe CPC in part and directed for proper valuation or' the suit and accordingly for payment of proper court fee. Hence this petition. . 2. The trial Court in its order observed the relief of permanent injunction being consequentiai has to be vaiued according to the injury which may be suffered by the p.iaintiffs and valuation put by t'ne plaintiffs is arbitrary and insufficient. 3. Shri Sanjay Patet, iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner failed to point out any iiiegality in the order impugned. A bare perusal of plaint woutd reveal that reiief of injunction has not been va!ued, aithough court fee Rs.600/- is paid. 4. in view of above, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has not committed any ilSegaiity or irregularity in passing the impugned order warranting interference of this court under Artteie 227 oft'ne Constitution of india. 5. !t is wel! settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its superyisoryjurisdtetion'underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India, shouid refrairutseif from interfering with the order passed by the Court beiow except in such cases where perversity, jllegality or jurisdict'onal ..•^sSt l!, "L J. '^, ^F^ error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. 7. Therefore, the petition being without substance is iiable to be and is hereby dismissed. w'3"'"S-'^S'^,'v.SvS^.^r