ll!.Mr! •'';'V>-'''"-''>.'~t;-';~^.n--i-"'r'''"'t."'.1^/~t''T-'-l.r WTHEHIGHCOUKTOFJUDICA'FUREATBILASPURfC.G.'l WRIT PETmONNc^ _S3.$^QF2003 t^ tAVINDRA KUMAR VARMA Aged about 70 years S/o, LateSri ShivaShankar SahaiVarma Retired Justice, M. P. High Court HTG-7, Indira Gandhi Maig, SouthCivilLines JABALPUR (M. P.) PETITIONER 1) 2) 3) IA ft f Egstrio kNE)Uk iU^ Versus Smt.JANKIBAI W/o. Late Shri G. P. Agarwal SANJAYAGARWAL S/o Late Shr G. P.Agarwal Both residents ofMungeli TahsilMungeli District Bilaspur (C. G.) RESPO_NDENT ^>--"' SMT.MEERA AGARWAL ^,^?' j5 W/o. Shri Rainesh KumarAgarwM^^..s^> Aged about57 years R/o,AryaNagar,Durg TahsilandDistrictDmg (C.G.) SMT. CHTTRA AGARWAL W/o, Sbri SusbilKumarAgarwal Aged about 54 years R/o. ACC Jamul Factory DisttictDurg(C.G.) ^- SMT. DR. KIRAN AGARWAL W/o, Dr. Suraj Agai-wal Agedabout 51 years' R/o. C/74 Shailendra Nagar Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C. G.). SMT. SUDHAGUPTA W/o. ShriAshok Kumar Gupta, AgedaboutSOyears ,. R/o. Madhopur, .': District Munger CBihar). SMT. BADHUDANI, W/0. Shri Chanara Rumar Dani, Aged about45 years, . R/o. K-4Adaish Nagar; Durg Talisil and DistricfDurg (G. G.). Gounti...2 :;l:IsiS'NsB3:1' WSSiK^ l^lftB^Hl! WSiSSU 8) SMT. SHEELADANI W6. Laxmikanth Dani Aged about 52 years R/o, Brahmanpara, Durg Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.). 9) SHRI VARINDRA KUMAR VARMA Aged about 66 years, S/o. Late Shri Shiv Shankar Sahai Varma, R/o, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, (C. G.). WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/^27 OF THE CQNSTITUTIQN OF INDIA' XI-HC-22 T^ •<ii<<i<n<i, »al*i<i<o, RicKuy 31i^?T 'W^K ^...^...'S.-,.^Q..:.^.S/-^9'::'3 200 <<1*«"11 %W% aii^m Ki-ii.i* ssS^ ^*ii*!ft I'M^ •i."^ aii^TCiiw^g Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Advoc; Heard. Counscl subiaittcd that passed an ord.er vlde annexu] 13/77. By the said judguient; the lower AppeUate Court coininissioner to measure the directions contained ui tlie orc the comniissioner was appoint^d but he has not conducted the measurement in accordaiit certain objections. The said obj fhat. it cannot be presumed t^at tlie coianiissioner has riot foUowed t.he proper procedure reiuanded in 1983 and niu^h time has passed so the objectlon is not sustainable. ctii^yij4i*ii flP^ft' ^ fs<<3 -I^I^H ^3)^i3)i^r j-e for the petitioner Ithe High Court of M.P. has 'e P-2 in Second Appeal No. the matter was remanded to with direction to appomt land in dispute as per the ;r. He fiu''ther subuiitted fhat ;e with law and he had filed ;tions were rejected observins and since the case has been / ^^ ^3^ : s'?^!K ?gff:;'%r<!"i%S?"K;' I-HC-22 SB^TSiI f<-li<b 3f^ St>+ll<ft ^^ Kt ..•??.;^?i1Bif^ ?;;;|^S'*s^^ f^- ^f !t]|!'3.;!Sl!E»t9a •4:'- f : •.'•'••y~^t^'. '.^ '3's? -t|I'>i(dil, ®n1.«'i<»,h«)«y 3ni?r 'qsra? .^.^..^C..Sli/ ^00 ^ 280 wwwgiwgi INS^T' sii^^BiWHftg Having cQnsidered the case and raaterial on record i*Wft"l<j)"( 'iWdT'SfB^lf'wst* ^TSifa^MSlI A f^.cts and ch'cumstances af,th{ jjucA/'^rii^.TiwWeAvw^M\>^ iin_the opinion of this Court,' since the appeal is still pendi|ig and is to be heard finaily by I to the petitioner to inake th< the appellate Court, it is opei| submlssion peruiisslble as pei| in accordance with law. He m^y raise the grounds/questions ui appeal ui case such aii eve^tuality. arises. With these observations, C-onsequentiy, M.W.P. |No. 446/2003 aiid I.A. No. 1170/2003 stand dlsposed of. Certifled copy as per rul^s law before the appeUate Cotirt. the petition is disposed of. Fakhruddin [•^^B^