IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) 63 (Sixty three) years smaLE 3mm W.P.(Art 227) No. mc‘é% / 2010 PETITIONERS :1) Kunti Devi wife of Rengu. Singh, aged Defendants :2) Phitaki, D/o. Totaram, aged 25 (twenty five) years :3) Anjani D/o. not known, aged 72 (Seventy two years) all resident of Village Batwahi, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus Kamlesh son of Rambriksh, aged 3O (thirty) years, resident of Village Batwahi, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) Plaintiff :2) Jitan, D/o. Vishnudhari, aged 4O (forty) years Resident of Village Jarhadih, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) Defendant No.4 :3) State of chhattisgarh through Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) Defendant No.5 RESPONDENTS :1) ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) N0. 2007/2010 PETITIONERS Kunti Devi and others DEFENDANTS Versus RESPONDENTS Kamlesh and others SB:- HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT :— Shri S.A. Ansari, Advocate, for petitioners. ’Shri Shri Roshan Verma, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent No. 3. o RAL ORDER (3—1.—2011) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 5— 2—2010 passed by the Illrd Civil Judge Class—II, Ambikapur, Sarguja in Civil Suit No. 32-A/2009 allowing respondent’s application for Withdrawal of the suit With permission to file afresh as the trial Court was not having pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the same. 3. Shri Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the trial Court should have passed the order under Order .7 Rule 10 of C.P.C. and should not have allowed the plaintiffs application under Order 23 Rule l of C.P.C. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order impugned, l do not find any substance in the instant petition. Even if it was found by the trial Court that the suit was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court, then the only course available to the Court was to return the plaint for presentation before the competent court. In the instant J 2 case, instead of above, the plaintiff himself has Withdrawn the suit on the above ground with liberty to file afresh. Permitting the same, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity leading to manifest injustice so as to invoke extra ordinaly jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering With the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. The petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge