‘H; ‘Jm‘, an g.‘ ,M ‘1 ‘ _w.\.z~m.~xm\.\.\;\> ‘v. IN T HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ' AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) P TITIONER " Indarchaxld aged about 39 efendant No.3 u /years S/o late Dwarlka Prasad Som R/o¢é WNagar In front of Nagar N1gam Udyan Durg, Tah31l and Dlstrlct Durg (C.G.) Versus ESPONDENTS I} ) ' yeare, Prav1nchand 8/0., late aged 4 Premchand about 32 Surana, : Tikamchand @ Sunil Kumar, aged about 3O years, S/o. late Premchand Surana, Gulabchand @ Anil Kumar A11 R/o. Jawahar Chowk, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg M.P. (now C.G.) Plaintiffs Smt. Dhanwantin Baj, aged about 61 years, Wd/o. late Dwarika Prasad oni Ma'nohar S/o late Dwarika Prasad Som aged about 41 years R/o $Shwam Nagar In front of Nagar Nlgam Udyan Durg, Tah31l and D1str1ct Durg (C.G.’)‘ HE S @ 2 Xi 0% Gulabchand aged about 6 years, S/o. late Dwarkika Prasad Soni, Respondent 4 to 6 R/o. SW Nagar In front of Nagar N1gam Udyan Durg, Tahs11 and Dlstr1ct Durg (C G ) Defendant No.1, 2 85 4 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3 . w.éa%>..u1.a.:§y§1.)I»m 200 mm (Wu) mmm ammm WWW WW WW *aa‘f'cmm SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohairs'hrivastava. J. x 07-05-2010 Shri H.B.Agrawai, Senior Acivocate along with Ms. Fragya Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Heard. This petition has been med the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 3l4i2010 by which petitioner’s appication under Section 151 CFC as also another appiication under Order 6 been rejected. Learned counsel for the pet ioner submits that in view of the liberty granted by this Court in its order ated 3/08l09 passed in W.P.(227) No. 4022/09, petitioner flied an applicat n under Section 151 CFC (Annexure P— 3) before the Court below stating th tpetitioner is not responsible but it is the plaintiff himself who is responsibie uie 16 read with Section 151 CFC has delay and therefore proper opportunity to defend the case is-required to b granted under the law and suit may be tried by following procedure presc bed under the law without tixing speciai dates and only in the manner other ln the opinion of this Court, he application was wholly misconceived. Vide order dated 3/08/09, this Co rt directed oniy for expeditious disposai without any order on merits of the c se. The opportunity to move appropriate appiication do not authorize the pe ' ioner to seek any direction of the nature as prayed for in the application un er Section 151 CPC. Even otherwise no substantive prayer has been made 'n the said application. No specmc order adversely affecting defence of the Court. The entire petition is centi responsible for causing deiay an nding cases are being decided. _ itioner has been brought to notice of this r to the aspect that it is the plaintiff who is , suppressing his own inaction l delay, r n t méagg..mg&:al/Jb IFL 200 3mm (Wu) mwEaia? WWW \ ww fgérm ammm vQ' $3ifdqm 1 grievance was ventilated that suit is; pending since 11/07/95 and application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is aiso ending since iaet 4 years. From the pleadings and gro nds raised in the petition, it is reflected that petitioner has connned chaiie e oniy to rejection of application under « Section 151 CPC without raising any ground of challenge in so far as rejection of application under 0rd r 6 Rule 16 CFC is concerned. - No illegality or perversity is reflected fr m the order dated 3f04i2010 passed by the Court below in so far as rejectio of application 151 CFC is concerned. With the aforesaid observ tion, the petition is dismissed. if the petitioner is willing to exercise lib rty reserved to him under order dated 3/08/09, he may take recourse to uch remedy as may be avaiiable to him under the law. tavai " xi a Sd/- ; { Manindra Mohan Shrivas Judge Dreyli