IN THE HIGH COUBT^)F JUDICATURE, AT BILASFUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.227 N0. \£Pvof 2010 PETITIONERS :- 1. (Defendants) p •••'\/? ^-^z^ ^A^^ \/:fsy ^" ..AT<0--'' ^ -..^t'^>" ^'^y ''^y RESPONDENTS :- (Plaintiffs) Smt Manbhavti (Dead) Through LR'S l.(a)Badri Prasad Sharma S/o Shrinaivas Sharma aged about 62 years R/o Beed para Raigarh (C.G}. l.(B) Babulal Sharma S/o Shrinivas Shanna aged about 60 years R/o Raipur (C.G). 2.(a]TGovind Shanna S/o Badri Prasad Sharma aged about 36 years. 2.(b) Rupesh Sharma S/o Badri Prasad Shanna aged about 34 years. 2.(c) Rakesh Sharma S/o Badri Prasad Sharma aged about 28 years. 2.(d) Roshan Shanna S/o Badri Prasad Sharma aged about 26 years. No's 2 (a), (b), (c) , (d) R/o Beed para Raigarh (C.G). VERSUS 1. Hari Ram Agrawal S/o Late Kalicharan Agrawal aged about 68 years Occupation Business ^" 9 if"iPii]|^|i]|iiI;31E£:.^fc3^S 2. Anil Kuinar Agrawal S/o Hari Rara Agrawal aged about 38 years Occupation Business Both R/o Danipara Raigarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 n*•run»^«»TT«»»n ^»»a*n-»-n->.fnun-»»n»»»n—na . /•••••; 8.B; it(iffirlite S1M ^a^aiaitj^umar wrusetiSmm'^SQ.iSeMaQiQ PETITIONEaS :RgSawffiN'FS' Sm^Manl>havti(Dead^T'hr^ I^S::^..^:'/;•'•:::,.'^ Yersus ;• •• '! • HarrRain Agrawal and anodier .Aopearattce: .'.' , ':' :::; '.".'.:•' ' '^ SMS^.l^de,eouasel^thepetffi^ -!: •:';^::.:.wmtet*ffiMai@BSa iiB8ae@KiBaK^SiE^^ ?KWBI^^B^^Si^%K?%W''Mil ::'r,::l'^%(^®% ):''.:'''::;, :;,;::1' The tnal court has^^^ ^m3|r|0j|gi|2g|%ulgi9a(^ ®^?^^issua^ for localjf 'myesft^ttiom.^.'.:'^..; ^'.:'^,:f^'':.^ ;,1,-:1 .: • .:-. 1 '•. : .:' • ::.', '. (2) The respondents/plairitiBEs ha^ an-ears ofrenf The defendant^are ^ k>rd and tenairt and are also elainiing Mtle to ^ siiit prei^is^ In response to the plamtifis^sei^o&Stfiatitfa^ reasonably suitable aKema^e^!a6fi^^ claiming that the plaintifi" iias ^l^sonabl^ accbmmodation^'^'-' . :.;.'/:'.:;;p.':'^'^^/l':^ (3) Refen^ t(»the af5dagitjEi)^|By the (ie^dants appli<sati!offiam(}eri(3^ ^ounsel ^ the pe(itioneis||EtsjsBtmi||g(}g^at?m|^ew ;£s^ssaS^BS^R^^i^t^N^i I- <<!. denial m disclosmgtlie accommodatkm^^w^ has become necessary to issue a ^ the alteniath^awOinmodationinppsisessionof^heplaintifL (4) In th& opni<m of ^ a surt fiw eyiction, it is fhe bzirden^offtliejlalairiiffi^ ip^ projected^ in the suit is iKmafide aiid^hattKe^^^ accommodation. (5) If the ^fendant pointe oud a^ according to fhe defeada^4^o^ tof^Splainti^^ is a subjeet Biatter of evid^^ assertion ofthede^dantpoweTunderOt4er26Rule9CPCeannot be exercised for colleeting evidence in a suit fbr evictjon ^o clemolisU the need jMtijected by the pIaintiflE (6) The trial courthas notcbmnuttedanyillegalityinrejectingthe applieation, (7) This petitio&underArticle 227 ofthe Constituttion oflndiais without anysubstance, which fails and is hereBy dismissed. ^s^^sbra prasbant^