I» arg'w/ @ ®/ _ ATURE OF CHHATTISGARH a IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIC BILASPUR W.P. N0364~7[zoo4— 1. Biharilal Ji Mandir Math Para Durg Distt. Durg, a registered public trust, registered under Chhattisgarh~ Public Trust Act, through, its sarwarakar Murli Manohar Tiwari, s/ o late Mohanlal Tiwari, aged about 39 years, resident of Chhota Math Mandir, Math Para, Durg’, pETITIONER: 2. Murli Manohar Tiwari, s/o late Mohanlal Tiwari, aged about 39 years, resident of Chhota Math Mandir, Math Para, Durg’, VERSUS l. Smt. Jamuna Bai Widow of Kashirarn resident of Dewangan aged 50 years, Math Para Durg. 2. ‘Ist Civil Judge Class II Durg.’ ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION WRIT PETITION UNDER OF,IND;///’d w> / XI-HC—2 2 28-10-2004 ‘ Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior qdvoca‘fe wi+h Sm'r. sudha Agmwal, Advoca‘re for The pe'l'i‘l'ioners. The petifioners have prefe red This wrijr pefifion under Arficle 227 of fhe Consfifufion of I dvio challenging The order dafed 1-7-2004 passed by fhe Firs‘r Civl Judge, Class—I; Durg, in Execu‘rion ‘ Case No.82-A/1981. In ”the said xecufion case judgmenf deb‘ror i.e. The pe‘ri‘rioner No.2 herein moved an applicafion under Secfion 151 of ‘rhe C.P.C. and submif‘i‘ed fha'l' he a fenanf of Biharilel Ji Mandir. IT was also sm‘red fhaf The ma‘rrer i pending before fhe High Courf for l decision whe'fher The properfy in quesfion is publick irusf or priv’a+e properTy. learned frial Cour? a er hearing fhe pari'ies, reached 1-0 1'he conclusion fhaf decree for viction against 'rhe pefi‘rioner No.2 herein was passed in favour of Th responden'l' No.1.by 1'he frial Courf and The appellaTe CourT also dis issed The same. ThereafTer, The . peTi‘h‘oner No.2 herein filed an ap eal before The ‘Hig'hCourT and. The High CourT dismissed The appeal of The peTiTioner No.2 on 9—5-88. Therefore. resp‘ondenT No.1, has moved for execuTion of The said i decree. I have heard learned coun for me perifionen,-,, [111%W \ XI—HC~22 mm mmwwm‘ WW mmmw Pb?” %31f——cm311%¥r Learned counsel for 1‘he pefi'rioners‘ submi‘r‘l'ed 1'ha1’ fhe pe‘ti‘rianer No.2 is ‘I'he Wenanf of 'H'Ie peti‘rioner No.1, Therefore, decree cannof be execufed agahs'r him Which has been passed in favour of responden'r No.1. In view of‘ 1’ne impugned order,_I am of fhe opinion fhaf mere is no subsfonce in fhis contention Tho? The Execufing Cour'r'has already recorded fha‘r The eviction decree in favour of responden'r No.1 and againsf fhe pe‘i’i‘l’ioner No.2 has been confirmed by fhe High Cour‘r in Civil Appeal No.537/85. v Therefore, I do no? find any illegali‘iy in fhe impugned order. The wrif pe‘rifion is liable fo be dismissed and the some is dismissed a‘r fhe admission sfage ifself. I Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge [W'lé éfear