J- :s ^^.^^1 ^r^'^:;...! <^ ^ cv-' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. ^ /2006 PETITION^: / Shri. Veerendra Kumar Shrivastava Defendant No.l S/o Late T.L.Shrivastava Aged about 50 years, OcGUpation-Joumlist R/o Near Dashhara Maidan Shanti Nagar, Bhilai[C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS:!. / Smt. Annapuran Shukla Plaintiff \<s^.-^ Defendent No. 28s3 /2. /3. ^^ W/oShri. B.P. Shukla Aged about 44 years R/o LIG-99, Vaishali Nagar, Police Station-Supala Bhilai [C.G.] State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Durg [C.G.] G.M. District Industrial Centre Durg [C.G.] A ^ ^\^ .•ft. -<-£^_^^r^^IT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOFJNDIA XI-HC-78 ^THt-TT Sb^n^i 3^ "i<i<iin<i, aTnu'is, ic|cfiy^< ^•^•^..^^^200^ 'LC. 3T1^?Ttra^ (lc'td°f'i.tT) sn^rqn'f^ira? (Wrsn^Tshiiqi STaiWfffersii^T t)Mfci41-i *ii*iciTfftei^t'<Rtwi< ^Sff^TSn^T 09.01.2007 Shri Rajeev Shrivastj petitioner. Heard. The petitioner beiag a) dated 16.11.2005 passed by CIass-II, Durg whereby fhe aj Order 14 Ririe 2 read with O been rejected. The grievan.c|i plaiatiff/respoudeut has fil{ uijunction and declaration tc| the plaintiff is hl possessiotl entitled to get fhe suit plot basis of legal agreeineat of 4< should be restraiaed from. io.1 and fhey slian 53e further properft' to the third partvr. order had rejected the applic|at is not for speci&c perforraai^ has been filed for declarationl From. perusal of.the pi'| has sought a declaration ui plaiutiff has prayed for transl^r a.va, learaed counsel for flie fegrieved by the impugned order |learn.ed 6th Additional Civil Judge IppUcation of ffae petitioner under ))rder 7 Rule 11 of fhe Code has of fhe petitioner is that the bd a suit for declaration and this effect has been sought fhat over fhe suit plot aad she is traiisferred ui her uacae on fhe lale and fherefore the defendaiits srferiag with her legal possession Istrauied froui alienating fhe suit Court below by the impugned on fue ground that flie suit lce of the contract and the sam.e lofperpetual iajunctiou. ayer it is evident that fhe plaintiff fhe nam.e of possession and the of suit property in. her uame. relstr: Tfbe pplic|ation P.T.O. v 's' XI-HC-78 *iwc\l sh+lich 3^'a(Fn?pT, »T(1y'ie,islciwy ..U;£;..^..&a&iJ^ 200£. an^TiraqT (lic*^ci<i<r) 3f1?RT^Tf?^ (RT 3;II^?T sbllt) 'K^. '\'- ^ ^ CTcnwflf^crsn^T -2-- In the aforesaid opuiion fhat fhe order mipug result fhe order impugned i reinanded back to fhe trial application preferred by flie opportunity of hearing to fhe this order is given liberhr to under tlie law. Witli this obseil 'u^ned Coliu-t circutnstauces fhis Court is of ttie caU for interference. In fhe is set aside and the matter is with a direction to decide fhe Ipetitioner afresh after afTorduis parties. TIie party .aggrieved by [take appropriate steps available |vatioii the petition is disposed of. wifci'fl'f iii(iTffte^<Ri+<;i< ^isri^irsiRST Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.