IN 'E-IE HIGH COU T OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR MADHYA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No. t£®3 /1996. Petitioner : Kriparam Son of Dukhu Satnami. Cultivator, Resident of I/ Village- Dhnldhul, ’Iahsil galoda Bazar. District, Raipur(M.P.). . .vs‘. §e spondent s : 1. sisram s/o Dularwa. through Legal Representatives 5’ (a) Smt. Karambai Wd/o Sigram, ged about 70 years. / {a (b) BlJelal S/o sisram.aged about 50 years. g (c)«‘sukhin s/o sisxam. aged about 48 years. (d )/ aged Lakhan about s/o sisram 40 ear/a. (e )y Chandra Kumar S/o sis ram. ageé about 38 yea rs . (f))rPawan s/o sisram. aged about 35 years. (g) Makhan s/o Slsram. aged about 30 years. 5‘ (g) Lakhepal s/o sisram. aged' about 2‘7 years. (1)}:Gangotri s/o sisram. aged about ‘32 years. A11 above resident of village- Dhuldhul,Tahs11 Baloda Bazar. Districtmaipur (MP). g 2. The Additioéal Collector,Ra‘i/pur (MP). s ”3 . The sub—Divisional Officer (Presiding Officer) . Debt ' Relief Court ,Baloda Bazar .District .Raipar (M.P. ). {E3 . yr Q3; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ 1. Particulars of the petitioner. As detailed above in cause itle. 2. Particulars of Respondents. As detailed above in cu title. ase a § y ”‘* WWWW ML~ 4&9 yé Wm mzoo ' mm (Wu) WWW‘ mmm WW 7§rém wmm $aifa'qeméw S.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Pras 1ant Kumar Mishra 2-1 2-2010 Shri Bhaskar Payashi, comsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, caunsel for respondents No.1(a) to 1(i). Shri Vinod Tekam, Pane Lawyer for the State/respondents No.2 and 3. The matter arises out of proceedings under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon K1. Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha ukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (henceforth ‘the Act’). Learned counsel appea ng for respondents No.1(a) to 1(i) has shown to this Court a co y of the order passed by the High Court of Madhya‘ Pradesh in S 0nd Appeal No.242/99 chalienging the judgment and decree pa sed by the 2m Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar in Civil A peal No.53-A/98. The said second appeaL' involving the same di pute, was preferred by the present petitioner The frst appellate ourt had passed a decree in favour ’ m ofthe present respondents No (a) to 1(I) directing the petitionerto (dellver possessmn of the suit l nd to them t i t u 3‘aW,WTa w/«4/9 fé mm E206 _ mww 1 ammm mmm mm (WEI) WW WW §iwm ndents No.1(a) to 1(1) is directed e order passed in the second Learned counsel for respc to submit a xerox copy of t appeal to be kept in the record of this writ petition. in view of the fact th t the lis between the parties remains concluded by the judg ent and decree passed by the _ in this writ petition for Gopai petition is dismissed as Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra // Judge / civil Court, nothingv surviv s adjudication. Consequently, the wrl infructuous.