IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. ”93$ /2oo9 SéngEa Bamh 1 PETITIONER DEFENDANT NO.2 {Sanjay Singh, S/o Late Satyavart Singh, aged 33 years, R/o Ameri Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur (C.G.) f4. l. Dinesh JiHgate S/o Shrl Janegshwar J1§ate aged 24 yearS' R/o Imllpara, Infront of Khadi Gramodgoyog, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District— Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Ram Das, S/o Late Sukh Ram Jee Tarare, aged 48 years, R/o Implipara, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Smt. Pramila Tarare, W/o Rajesh Tarare, aged 35 years, R/o Implipara, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Rake sh Kumar Sharma, S/ Q Late Ramadhar Sharma, aged 37 years, R/o Juna Bilaspur, Ward No.27, RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS JU\ V..... . ,.' ¢@ 3% BM W- :w;‘..- DEFENDANT NO.1 —u V ,- i, /1 : 4 " WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Baniyapara (Dhamni Bada), Bilaspur, Tahsil and District— Bilaspur (C.G.) DEFENDANT State of Chhattisgarh, NO.3 Through Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C‘G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR AT §ILA$PUR i!e c'Hn’hi ‘ ' Psha riha , n‘tPeti‘on 2 H.498 o PETmONER 8anjay Singh Versus RESPONDENTS Dinesh Jibhkate and others. Shri 5hri KR. C. Jayant Nair. K. counse! Rao, counsel far responden2s for the pemioner. No.1 to 3. Shri $anjeev Agrawat. Panel Lawyet for the Stateltespondent No.5. RIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQST§TUTION GF INDM Nana for r&spondent No.4. W ORAL ORDER (01.102o10; This is a petititm under Section 227 of tha Constitution of india by the defendant in the suit, The ma! Court, by the impugned arder, has grantad plaintiffs’ appiication under Section 151 of C.P.C. and has directed that the defendant No‘zlpetitioner shalt not initiate any proceeding for mutation of his name aver the suit praperty and if the proceeding has a!ready been initiated the Tahsildar sham not pass any fine! order on his application. (2) r 1 y ) 1 1 J J J J A i i ) i y i i i i i i i i i i r y i i i i {‘0 (3) it appears mat the defendant No.2lpetitioner hati aiso moved an ' application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. before the tria‘ Court which has been disposed as not maintainable by the same order of the trial Court passed on 16-0?-2010, as in the opinion of the trial Court since both the parties have been directed to maintain stems-gum the application tiled by the defendant Nolz does not survive. (4) in view of the above fact situation, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition has become infructuous and it is dismissed as infruotuous. lf the petitioner feels that the cause of action of the present / petition Still Servives, he may Prefer the Petition afresh. . 7 Sd/w ‘2 Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge