IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.J WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTJCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W.P.(227) No. ^fi /2011 PETITIONERS : (Plaintiffs) \ ASV.V/ ^w ^^K^/ ^A 5t'^' ^•' 1. Surendra Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri.Madan Gopal Mishra Aged about 71 years , R/o Gondpara , BUaspur (C.G. ) 2. Smt. Kusumlata Shukla W/o Shri. Ramashankar Shukla Aged about 70 years R/o R-67, First Floor, Model Town , 3 Delhi 3. N.K. Mishra , aged about 67 years S/o Late Shri.Madan Gopal Mishra , R/o Gondpara , Bilaspur (C.G. ) 4. B.K. Mishra aged about 65 years years S/o Late Shri.Madan Gopal Mishra , R/o Gondpara , Bilaspur (C.G. ) 5. Rajendra Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri.Madan Gopal Mishra , Aged about 61 years, R/o Plot No. 504 N/3 , C.I.D.C.O. Aurangabad (Maharashtra) /no^rjiJ(K M" 6. Sint. M^agaia Tripathi w/o Shitalaprasad Tripathi Aged about 60 years , R/o Flat No. 302, Saptashringi ,Telipara BUaspur (Petitioner No.2 to 6 through Surendra Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Shri.Madan Gopal Mishra Attorney) Versus a t-]1 r' il, :i(' 11'1 ::'• i1 ^ i! ( i RESPONDENTS (Defendant) l.Smt. Hansadevi Dubey about 65 years, W/o Bhagwat Prasad Dube,R/o Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur, Tahsil 8s District -Bilaspur !?!t n ! ; : ^^^S^T.:=^ V^W^t^^^'^^'^'J_ ^lfTTTTlhWBitStgsp^slff^ ^^^^^^K^^^^^^ As @ 2. Smt. Vandana Chaturyedi W/o S.P. Chaturvedi,R/o Chandan Awas Grih, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur 3. Smt. Anjali Chaturvedi W/o Ravi Chaturvedi, R/o Quarter No. A-16 Priyadarshani Nagar, Bilaspur 4. Smt. Ranjana Mishra w/o Dipak Mishra, R/o A/13 Krishna Arpan , Panchpedi, Jabalpur (M.P.) 5. Sanjay Dube S/o Late Shri. Bhagwat Prasad Dube , R/o Marsh Agency Near Bajaj Park, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur 6. M/s Hariram. Bhikam Shah Firm , Through Amritlal Gupta , Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur 7. Hakikar Rai Arora ,C/o Arora Boot house Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur 8. Bata Shoe Company , Through Manager Lease 8s Rent, Bata India Ltd. 6-A, S.N.Banarjee Road Kolkata 9. Firm Malikram Melaram, Through Partner Charanjeet Chhabada, R/o Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur 10. Manish Shukla, Aged about 40 years, S/o Madanlal Shukla, C/o Apna Bhojai'ialaya, Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur 11. Jagdish Sahu S/o Harilal Sahu, Aged about 48 years, R/o Bazar Ward, Near Kamal Lodge, Bilaspur 12. Lalji Agrawal , Aged about 75 years R/o Bazar Ward, Near Kamal Lodge, Bilaspur 13. Shri. Bhargav Mishra S/o Harnarayan Mishra R/o Ganj Para, Dur; nii St', bi 14. Shri. Shastriya Mishra S/o Harnarayan Mishra R/o Ganj Para, Durg 15. Shri. Keshav Mishra S/o Harnarayan Mishra R/o Ganj Para, Durg 16.Shankutala w/o Bacchaji , R/o Nayapara, Raipur 17. Shri. Ambikeshwar Mishra @ Khunnu s/o Narendra,R/o Goa Udeheen, Tahsil & District- Allahabad 18. State of C.G. Through Collector Bilaspur 19. Manish Mishra, Aged about 40 years, S/o Shri. Ramkripal Mishra, R/o E-605, Sajjan Bihar Sector- 43,Gudgaon(Hariyana) WRIT PETITION UNDER_ AR.TICLB ^27_OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQR_ WRIT/WRITS, ORDER/ ORDERS, DIRECTION/DIRECTIQNS ?i «]; ^^-'' 'w~" ^i^ais H!GH_eOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 566 of 201 1 PETITIONeRS RESPONDENTS Sursndra Kumar Mishra and others. Versus Smt. Hansadevi Dubey and others. WR!T PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 227 OF THE CONSTiTUION OF !ND!A . (SB: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwat. J.) Present : Mr.K.A.Ansari.iearnedSeniorAdvocatewithMrs.Meera Ansari, counse! forthe petltioners. Mr. Arvind Dubey, PL forthe State/respondent No.18. Even afterthe matter wa,s ca!led in the second round, noneappeared on behalf ofthe respondents, therefore, the matter is heard in their absence. (04.07.2011) Late Jankibai had instituted a suit for declafation of her title in the property of Late Shivrani Bai through her power of attorney Surendra Kumar Mishra (petltloner No. 1 herein). During examination of Surendra Kumar Mishra in his capacity as plaintiff's power of attomey, it was noticed that the plaintiff has died and, therefore, the statement or'.Surendra Kumar Mishra in his capacity as power of .attorney could noi be completed and became non-est, therefore, the triai Court vide impugned order. dated 25.3.2010 declared above statement as non-est and inadmissible in the evidence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner woujd submit: the evidence of Surendra Kumar Mishra recorded by the tria! Court could considered and cannot be held to be ineffective and inadmissible. 3. "I have heard counsei for the petitioner and perused the materia] availabie on record ineluding impugned order. 4. Indisputably, before the evidencs of Surendra Kumar Mishra couid complete, plaintiff died and, therefore, since the statement could not, be completea', it became meaning!ess. and now as per DetitiQners, Surendra Kumar Mishra has been substituted in the case ^2^SSi"3ii^^^!^Sil^@^^^ %. e as legal heir of deceased/piaintiffsothat he may be examined in the court afresh but so far as his incompletestatement re'corded prior to death of plaintiff is meaningless and the trial Court has rightly passed the order that the, incomplete statement of plaintifrs power of attorney Surendra Kumar Mishra is inadmissibte and non-est. 5. It is wetl settled principle oflaw that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articte 227 ofthe Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed bythe Court beiow, except in such csises where perversity, itlegality, irregularity or jurisdictional erroriswritlargeontheface ofthe record, whieh is not in the presentcase. 6. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Since the matfer is very old, it is expected from the court beiow to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with the law.