c ^ -t ???"?*! J &^iL»a'a ^.pr,, o IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) N0. l\3' / 2011 PETITIONER [Defendant No. 1} ofi.Ho^-.--------^'^J^<W^y~}^^ F,s3.nte^*^^^\^.... RESPONDENTS : [Defendant No.2 to 5\ [PlaintiffNo.l &2\ ^- Harshad Rai Kothari, S/o late Nawalchand Kothari, aged about 55 years; R/o Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Opposite Girls School, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil &, District-. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1) Raipur Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Through: Coramissioner, Raipur Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) 2) Raipur Development Authority, Through: President, Raipur Development Authority, R.D.A. Bhawan, Opposite Mantralaya, Raipur, Tehsil 85 District-Raipur (C.G.) 3) Smt. U^ha Gunwant Rai J. Desai, aged 'about 59 years; R/o D/25, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil 85 District-Raipur (C.G.) ^4) Smt. Mridula Dinesh Chandra Doshi, aged about 51 years; R/o C/o Raju Bhai Doshi, Prem-nivas, Chankradharpur (Jharkhand) ^S) Bhavesh Kothari, S/o late Nawalchand Kothari, R/o D/2, Sector-3, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil 85 District-Raipur (C.G.) ^ ^6) Smt. Riddhi Santosh Kumar Tater (wrongly mentioned as "Tawei"}, aged about 23 years; R/o HIG Block No.A-4, Housing Board Colony, Lakholi Naka, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil 8s District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE-227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ sm? r^—^siRS^?^ ^ »-."saai HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P. (227)No. 1170/2011 Harshad Rai Kothari Versus Raipur Municipal Corporation Raipur and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J PRESENT: Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate, for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (3-3-2011) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 12-1-201 1 passed by Xth Civil Judge Class II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 23-A/2009 whereby and whereunder petidoner's objection under Section 151 ofC.P.C. was rejected. 2. Shri Surana, leamed counsel for the petifioner would submit, without there being any power of attorney given by plaintiff No. 4 in favour of plaintiff No. 1, the suit has been filed cn 16-10-2008. The plaintiff No. 1 sought correction of above mistake by filing power of attorney which was executed by the plaintiff No. 4 on 22-6-2010 and therefore, fhe trial court ought to have directed plaintiffNo. 1. to submit affidavit ofplaintiffNo. 4 showing his consent for filing ofthe suit on 16-10-2008. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order impugned, I do not find euay illegality in the order passed by the trial court. However, it would be appropriate for the frial court to obtain affidavit of plaintiff No. 4 showing his consent in favour of the plaintiffNo. 1 tofile the suit on 16-10-2008. 4. In view of above, trial Court is directed to obtain affidavit as mentioned hereinabove. 5. With the above observation and direction, this petition is disposed of. ____——— Sd//- Judge •?/