r SlftGlE SEIiMgjf1 IN THE ^^»'K® OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. {227} No. ^Q^' /2010 PETITIONERS Contemnor no. 1 ^^^^ ^•ssys^--" ^^•y- ^°- RESPONDENT Complcdnant Con.temn.or no. 2 1. Alok Jaiswal, S/o. Late Shri Kannilat Jaiswal, Aged about 32 years, Occupation- Business, R/o. Raraanujganj Road, Town Ambikapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS Amitabh Jaiswal S/o. Late Kannilal Jaiswal, Aged,about 38 years, Occupation- Business, R/o. Ramanujganj Road, Town Ambikapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.j Kanaldata Jaiswal, W/o. late Shri Kannilal Jaiswal, Aged, about 58 years, Occupation- Business, R/o. Ramanujganj Road, Town Ambikapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA 2. ^ (- HIGH COIJRT O^GHH^ lS<SAKH^T BILASFI3R S.B: Hon'lrifiiSEhi'iPai'asliantKumarMishra WritPetition(22^3No.3095/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS AIokJaiswal VerisiM:.'.. ':'' :;! • AmitaMi Jaiswal and anothcr ABpearance:" '..:!- . :'; •' 1' ['i ../::': • •'.•^" •• • ' .-! : • ShnS.R.Sinl^counsel&rthepgtitioneT. vmiTPEiaTION®MEBeaLKriGI^2^^ CONSTIFtitI€l>^^:^mA;:R1.^ ORALORDER (06.12.20W)- i The petitioner tias catled m questmn the order passedliy tfae MJC Coiirt dlowing the prayer fcr restoration of MJC N6. 25y?20Q9 preferred by' the respondent committing ci'vil contempt against the petitionef| and the respondent No.2., . :; ' ' ; .,':^'':' '•...•':^; (2) Leamed counset fbr the petitionfir wouU^ restoration applieatioh was not presented within time aiid yetjthe learned courfr below has allowed prayer &r restoration wllifih is not ,proper. :. •,:;, ,,; ..: .: .:' .: : . •,'.,;••:. ^3) From the impygned onler and the other doeum^its aime^ with tfae writ petition, rt would appear fhat in the applicaticin for restorafionthe respondent.No.1 has mentiohed that hfi did nbtjmake proper entries of Ifae date of liearing in hi& ^diary ^nd the) ition- appearaace occasroned becauseofthe said mistake. TI^ -7 explanation for non-appearance which Bas been found proper by fhe court belowto restora theMJC No. 25/2009. (4) It is settled law that fheHigh Court in exercise ofpower under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India does not interfere merely tp correcf errors of law unless the party ,applying &r is seriously prejudiced or the impugned order/ifallowed fo remain intact would occasionfailure pfjustice. . (5) It is also settled that tHe power under Article 227 ofthe Constitutionoflndiashouldbeexercisedspariiiglyanduirarecases. (6) In view of theabove law laid down bytheHon'ble Supreme GourtinlfaematterofSurya^wRaiVs.Ram^^^C^ otlwrs,@()03)6SCG675tySGOurtisiiotinclinedfeeritertamttiis writpetition, which failsandisherebydismissed. Sd//- . Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge '. (^