y ^ ^ FliIfs!M ^n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH !>?- W.P.(Sa No. G^^ 12008 PETITIONER ..^'<> ^^y ,<^€>- 5r^^?v ^y' Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Sundar Lal Gupta Aged about 45 years, R/o Mathpara Tah. and Distt. Durg (C.G.). v"-".^" ^-•,~. ...^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS Chandi Mandir Nayas Samiti Durg Through -: Manager, Jai Kumar Sharma aged about 55 years R/o Chandi Chowk Durg Tah. and Distt. Durg (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^l fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &B: Hon*ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 6532/2008 PETmONER RESPONDENT Arun Kumar Gupta Veisus Chandi Mandir Nayas Samiti Durg ApDearance: Shri Vipin Tiwari, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Manish Upadhyay, counsel for the respondent. WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE 2270FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (26.10.2010) Heard on admission. (2) The instant petition has been directed against the order dated 15/09/20Q8 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Vth Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg, District Durg, in Civil Suit No. 46-A/2005, whereby Ifae application, filed by the defendanl/petitioner under Section 151, Order 6 Rule 17, and Order 8 Rule l(a) 3 ofCode ofCivil Procedure, 1908, has been dismissed and the case was fixed for cross- examination ofdefendant/petitioner. (3) The brief facts of the case in nutshell are that Ifae plaintiff/respondent herein, which is a trust, filed a suit for eviction of petitioner from the suit premises. The only contention raised by Ihe petitioner is that as per tfie documents rweived by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, the person who has filed tfae suit on ^ behalfofthe tmst is neither a tmstee nor the person authorized to file a suit on behalfofthe said trust, therefore, the suit is incompetent, and leamed Civil Judge Class-II, wrongly dismissed their application underSection 151 ofCPC. (4) A bare pemsal ofthe impugned order and the pleadings ofthe parties would reveal that status ofthe respondent as registered public trust and relationship of landlord and tenant between the said trust and the petitioner was not denied by the defendanVpetitioner herein in his written statement. (5) The contention raised by Shri Vipin Tiwari, leamed counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court had wrongly dismissed the petitioner's application despite the fact that name ofthe person who filed the suit on behalfofthe trust did not find place in the register of Registrar of Public Trust and, therefore, the suit itself was incompetent and the leamed Irial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner. (6) I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the petitioner for two reasons, first is that, the tmst is landlord ofthe petitioner and not tfae person who signed and verified the suit, and secondly, it is always open for the petitioner to raise this plea in written statement tfaat tfae signatory to tfae plaint filed by the trust was not authorized to sign and verify the plaint and the Court will certainly decide the issue if raised by the petitioner. But it is not the case that by passing the said order, leamed court below eommitted 3 such illegality which can be corrected in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court. (7) It is well settled principle of law that this court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Artiele 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, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. (8) In the facts and circumstances offhe case, the petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed at admission stage. (9) No order as to costs. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^A