ttlFff INTME.HIGH GQyfH'OP^UDieATREAt.Bll.ASie'URrG.G.T .WRit^PET^olNliNG^l^K./:^ PETHIQNE^^^';;/: ^; POSSESSiON MOK.DERS :x, y- ^ Rewatj Bai Janghel, aged about .39 yesrs, iwife of 1-ate KFiparam Janghel. Rishi Janghel, aged abput 21 years, son of Lat&KFiparairiJanghel , Ku^^Mamta Janghel, aged about 18 years, dai-ighter of Late KripaFam Jahghel. ' 3ag'clish Janghel, aged ' about 14 years, (Minor) so of Late Kriparam. ^, i^k ^w A^f ti?/ SIW w IS'I -.M/ ^: -^ ^^' ^ Ku. Manisha Janghel, aged about 12 years (Minor), daughtei- Of 1-ate Ki-iparam Jangftel, ^/ Maneesh Janghel, age3 about 10 years, (minor)son of Lafe Kriparam Janghel. Aashish Janghel, aged about 7 ygars six months (Mihor) sori of Late Kriparam Janghel.. " ,;^^S]:.N(3.^4^t&^7i;are.:.;rri;jnore,;^t;hro ^;£':^7'^I.S"NISra9MWiilB^nWBSB;^§U:iSl^^ ^.^33a|iggg@ggiB|g|i6Baii|^tF%gg'gan^ ^.:^ ^^tj^^.it^llllS^I^^B^^KSiSiBNiHlgll^^ :l:.^;:;"^SNaBSiffii;!liS8B3^9S®BIRN®MB^^iBS:a^? ^;':^('s^^;f:Bi^i^l^(guR^©.^^s?t ftESJRiEtNBENTS M / VERSUS . .' ;:. 1; ehandrabhan Kriplarii, som of [ Geomall Kriplani, Fesidgnt. ^of Geetanjalil i^NagaF(^ Raipur; Tahsil and Bistrict! Raipur; (Chhatfisgarh), . C&&c'»iaH6)d<:;)^ Jairamdas Dengwani, sbn of Danarriar Dengwani, residentl of Anil^Cldth Acieney^' Shop N0. 41, ;thrtiugh —,(;l(ithM :Pandn,, Raipur (Chhattisg^i-hi) .(SIN.GE: DEt!;EASEDl •1. : .:1. .. •:::..: '; . ::.::: ".". .;: AnJl;Kyitlai- Dengwani, SQn oM-ate .. ;•; Jairarndas! E)engwani,^gey about;26:y^ars, residfint .of: Near Sinaitu^ BHawan DeVendFa^ Naga^Rai^ur(I^GALHEIR^(-3:ua^,,^^^ ::^^.:Y:..:'.1...'::;1.::'...1.' WR.ITPETITIONU/A.ZZZOFTHEGOFNStI'I'UfION^iFilNlSlA i] PARTIGULARS C>F TME^PETnti>ril EFt;- As givert above in tlie cause title. ; ?,. •. 'fiilfHfl XI-HC-22 32^ 3ST -<<|t||c]1, ®fll<'l'|tS,tqcll^ly tifflR-iraiwai T^TtBW / ^^•.S-IM—„» •tV^ 200- 311^?T?iT JS.-fi^sn^T aiM fff?(T Ijtll lii.tB sii^TSTgiwHf^r '=bwf<vi4)'T ii'iciiil' te^ <r»i«i< ^3if^IT3IT^T 15-6-2005 --- --- : | '-- '^~ . Heard Mr. Malay Kumar B^aduri, counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Ari'icle 227 of the Constitution of India, que^stioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 12-5-2005 passedjby the 1 Additional Ciyil Judge, Class-1, Raipur, whereby the iearned Adi^itional Civil Judge rejected the appiication filed by the petitioner's under ^ection 94 (5) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. \ Brief facts leading to filitig of this wit petition are tiiat respondent ~'^0LA*.<^/0^ct^ No.l herein filed a civil suit, sl^owing him as'orieBait, before the 1ST Civil Judge, Class-1, for ejectment ai|id arrearsof rent against respondent No.2, which came to be registered ^s Civil Suit No.2Q-A/2002, thot suit was decided and decreed on 20 t^ecember, 2002. A decree of ejectment against respondent No.2 was pi^ssed in respect of the .land situated near iaiaji Mandir shouun in red and blue cotours in the map annexedwiith the suit 'The suitwas further decr^ed against respondent No.2 for payment of v^H^Sfrent of Rs.1,250/- and ^rrears of rent. tjo appeql was preferred by respondenf No.'2 against thot, t^ierefore, respondent No.l moved execution application before the Addition(i!.Cjvil Judge for execution of the decree. When in order to execute th^ warrant of possession the Court Ballif reached on the spot, he foun^ thcrt- the said judgment debtor namely Jairamdas Dengwani was not r^siding on the disputed land,.but petitioner No.l herein namely Rewati Bai Jdnghel, w/o Late Kriparam Janghel was found in Gosse,ssion_and it wQsEinformed bv thp- noinhhfttir'p-r^ thnt <she 13 „„„_! • BJI^I Esa ji: :'I XI-HC-22 3^ arpn^pr, sgtwTs, R<-ii*iy iiiCTrs»>*iil»> an^TT^^ . _.<%^^?A%C/. V^ 200 ^S~ Ri'txd 3TI^T«BI f<-)i«fl3TRST 9nH trf?CT -^; ooinc sti^iswiwflfer —3.' -+ +!• ;uting possession of the petitioners herei|i in accordance with ©rder21 Rule 97 and Order 21 Rule 101 of the C.P.C. Court was required to stay its hanc|s and ask the decree_holder to move on iapplication under Order 21 Rule 97 possession of the third person. As prayed by learned counsel |w)ant to 'moye appropriate forum With these bbservations the •*i'iild-'(l-i HWdT ir' teA <.Rit<i< ^•iiKftoncST >urt uuijlil luhut/ti yfiquired inTi; The On receiving such report, the executing |of the C.P.C. for adjudication about the for the petitioners that the petitioners for redressa! of their grievances in accordance with law, the petitioner^; are at libertyto move the qipropriate iforum, in accordance with law. faetition is disDosedof in limine. Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.l7qO/2005 & I.A.No.4111/2005 atso stand tJisposed of. Parties are entitled for certi^ied copy of this order. SA''. -^ado° ^•^ (qft^t)