IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR £ J l i \ L ggHHATTISGARH) W.P.(C) No. ®% 0f 2063 PETITIONER E DEFENDANT N0. 1 RESPONDENTS :-/Bhawani Shanker Panigrahi, son of Late Chandra Shekhar Paiigrahi, » Bhilai, District Durg(Chhattisgarh). VERSUS } Gulab Singh, son of Shitla Prasad Singh, resident of Qr. No. 1/B, N.P.A., Sector-4, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.), PLAINTIFF. k Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant, Through Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh), . Bhilai Steel Plant, Through Official iDirector (Administration and Personnel), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg ‘v’ (Chhattisgarh), 4. Bhilai Steal Plant, Through Town Administrator Lease ("l"-032mg, Iia" » “.,4 / aged about 2+3 years, resident of Qr. No. 1/A.N.P.A., Sector-4, ‘I 3‘“ _.._,,,...-. Permanent res1dent of Shanker Vilas Hotel, Setor—4"A”Market, % @ Administration), Town Administration Building, Indira Place, Civic Center, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh). DEFENDANT NO. 2 TO 4. P®TITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF ,.INDIA r V a »,.4 XI—HC—78 HW,WW,W mwmedq).$/.Q.DHW 2'00 WW<W§® WW mmm mmm WWW W %aq%wan%31 UX 18.1.2007: Shn H B Agrawal learned Sq Counsel With Shn Panka} Agmwa! for the petitioner The petiticner has impLigne the application of the defendants for spot inspection has been reject d. d under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC Learned counse! for the pe itioner submits that uniess spot is got inspected and Commissioner’s r port is obtained with respect to the situation that exists, the suit cann t be decided. Therefore, application of the petitioner for appointment of th Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the .CPC ought to have been a lowed. However, the Court below has rejected the same by the impugne order. l have heard counsel for th petitioner and perused the impugned order. The Court below has rightly observed that the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence’and prove thei case. Thus there is no iilegality in the impugned order which calls for int rference from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Ac ordingly the petition is dismissed / Sdl- Dhufendl‘a M‘sma Judge / . \t‘ x ‘i, 3),-.3 P.T.O. H :t the order of Annexure P-5 by which W e