<::C?i"!'fc^E?-~SEe,ePW cy IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (227) N0. 72010 Petitioners Plaintiff / >^ '-(031: Musariimdt Jainab Bee, Aged about 69 years, Wd/o Marhoom Alauddin 2. Jamaluddin, Aged about 63 years S/o Marhoom Alauddin y3. Anwaruddin, Aged about 58 years, S/o Marhooin Alauddin / 4a. Smt. Shanaz Begum, Aged about 46 years, Wd/o Marhoom Ameenuddin /4b. Azaruddin, Aged about 20 years, S/o Marhooin Ameenuddin / 4c. Shafkat Banu, Aged about 22 years, D/o Marhoom Araeenuddin (Petitioner No.4 b to 4c are rainors at the tiine of filing of the suit) ''5. Naimuddin, Aged about 46 years, S/o Marhoom Alauddin ^6. Mubiuddin Aged about 44 years, 3/0 Marhooin Alauddin 7. Javed Akhtar, Aged about 40 years, S/o Marhoom Alauddin , 8. Jahid Akhtar, Aged about 38 years, S/o Marhoom Alauddin Petitioner no.l to 8 are R/o Chudiline Raipur-(C.G.) ,9. Snit.Tahira Begum, Aged about 61 years, W/o Shri Mohamm.ad Ha-san, ,:5>' R/o Centerkoni, Distt. Bilaspur- (C.G.) Smt.Abeda Beguni, Aged about 55 years, W/o Shri Mohammad Bashir, R/o Azad Ward, Koti Bazar, Baitul [.p.l .^'^y^ ^^ ^%{/ ^.^.^ ^/h^/yf Versus Respondents Defendants '•s. -/1. Bantulal Dewangan, Aged about 73 years, S/o Ram Charan Dewangan , 2. Smt. Padmawati, Aged about 68 years, W/o Bantulal Dewangan both R/o Pandri Road, Near Nala, in front of Gulab Machli Wala, Raja Talab, P.S. Civil Line, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur-.(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER_ARTICLE 22^-OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .ifct, iRri t«3HCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIU^PURs Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kwnar Mishra PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Writ Prtition (2271 lto^097 / M10 Nhisammat Jaunab Bee airi ottws; Versys Bantulal Dewangan and ancrtherg Shri ImUyaz Ali, counsel fwthe petBionere. Shri G.D. Wsswaru, counsel forthe responctats. wrar pErmoN UNDER ARTICIJE 227 OF THE TO^TTTUTION OF amiA -~^::': '-;~:^"c''s:~"'" ORALORDER (03.09.M10) Heard. (2) The p^onere are dtaUenging the otiterjia^e^ Court on 25-02-2009 in M.J.C. No. 02»7and ortter datted 2&06-2006 passed by the IX Adclitional Distri<A Juc^, Raipitf m MiBCdlteuieou® CMI A^eal No. 4/09. (3) The ptaintiffe* suit wre puipCTtedly disntisse^ ur^ Rule 3 of G.P.C. on 23-01-2007. Apt^catton ynder Qnter 9 Ryte9o^^^^ C.P.C. was dismissed on %-02-2008 and thereafter ttw preferred a ftfflsoeUaneous ^)peal under Oreter 43 rde 1(c) af C.P.C. tearing Mtecellaneous Chffl Appeat No. 04/09. This MtscdtaroBous appeal was dtemissed on 26-0&-20(©by the IX A(tel|Bona< Dis|nct 'Judge, Raipur. The M.J.C. Court as well as the appellate Ccurt deatir®with the MisceUaneouB Appeal ware of the opmion thdt ^nce the suft te®been dtemissed under Onter 9 Rute 9 of C.P.C. ttie apprqmate remedyforUw{^amtiffteteifitearegular||a!^apB!i^ ^ Sectton96ofC.P.C. B^'SE. '.f. s^' 2^- (4) Tlie petffionere wertxiany fited WHie^a^JFw^fi3pS9!^<^ 2009 before the Distric* Judge, f^ipur. The sahl Ri^ ^ifi|!ggl|i'was barred by Bmitation and an s^rfteatiwt under Secthwt 5 ofthe UirttolBon Act was preferred fbr condoreriion of delay in ffl»^thej^peat. ;<^i 18-11-2009 the tesmed Dtstric* ^wSgs rqected ttie {x'ayer'for condonirtion of etelay in fiKng the appead and ae.a coi'Kequen<».lBie First App^il wes dismissed. (5) The petitioners thereatter preferred Second Appead No. ^/201Q befbre this Court. The sakl Serond Aiqaead was wflUtidrawn on 29-04-2010 under an hTqnession that the appeal js rot maNainabls- (6) After wnthdravwng the flret appeal the present petition ynder Articte 227 of ttie ConstituBon of India hs» been preferredseetang quashmentoftheorderpassed bytheM.J.C. Cwrt pn 28^^-2009 and by the appellate Court rejecting Ihelr Miscellaneous A(^)eal on 2&-06- 2009. From the bacl^round of the IBigsrtton It would ^)peEff that if thts wit peBtton is ertertained, there would be two contUethg circters one whtoh has been passed fcy the firet ai^eUate Court under SecUon 96 of C.P.C. white dismissh^ ttw petitionere app^A s®teared by HmltaBon and the other whtoh may be passed in this wrtt peBBon, if h te entertained. (7) Lesmed counsel fbr e p^tioror realizing the dtfficulty and tbe pmstake in withdrawing theSecond Appeal, prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to move an ^iptication for review / recaNing of the order passed in Secwd Afqieal. 1 -3- (8) ConsequenUy, this swtt pe*S|on is dismi^ed j»w B*swm£witti liberty to move &n applicattm fbr recalting / reviewofUwwdwjwssed in Second Appeal No. 53/2010. 7_ Prasham Kumar Mishra Judge