IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR {CHHATTSSQARH5 \^-y ^•'1[y^{ ..^.••"' ^-\-p ^-^ '..."^ PE71TSONER W.P.No. ^H/2001 Santosh Kumar Narad S/o Sri Hari Swaroop Narad Aged about 55 years Resident of Qr. 11-A, Street No.36,Sector15, Bhiiainagar 1 Tahsil & Di&tt., Dul-g (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Pratima Narad Widcw of Coinet S.K. Naresd Resident of 125, Simroia Road Indore (M.P.) 2. Rajneesh Narad Aiias Rahui Narad S/oLateS.K.Narad Aged about 34 years Resident of 125, Simrota Road indoreCM.P.) 3. Capt. Manish Alias Monu Narad /^ed about 32 years Readentof 125. Simrota Road lndore(M.P.) v^ ? A 4. Punjab Nationat Bank Through Branch Manager Civic cenfre Bhiiai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5. United Commercial Bank Through Branch Manager Civic Centre, Bhifai Tahsi! & Distt. Durg (C.G.) @. ArjunYadav S/o not known Advocate Bar Associatson, Durg (C.G.) PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS AND ORDERS OF CERTIORAR!. lyiANDAIViUS. AND OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS & ORDERS. ~ 01. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITiONERS: As given above in the cause title. 02. PARTICULARS OF 7HE RESPONDENTS : As given above in the cause tiffe. 03. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETiTION iS MADE : - (i) Proceedings in Civil suit No. 19-A/S5 by the Court of Third Additionat Judge to the Court of District Judge, Durg between Smt. Pratima Narad and Branch Manager, Punjab Nationai Bank and others for declaration and permanent injunction va!usd at Rs. 4,90,000.00 granting prder or status-quo in favour of Respondent no. 1 (ptaintifl) Pratima Narad on 13.9.1995 even without her payjng the ad-valorem Court fee d^pite tfte objection by ~^> 1 -^^^-^-" ^^^ '^: ?? tj^~ t^ 1<- r^r-4?'i'T*l^^s IC'E^ r's. 111 t^»"'^^r^ r^.co?~^^> ^i^si £-!S-N^tl ?^^^a I!^? ^^^ ^^s-lS-?A'~*¥'S^?^^ASt3_t 3iV ^s^ A^?°&J(S I. iiun uuutt ur wnnn i i ISUftKM A i Btl.AS-i'UK inate Bench: Hon bte Shri Justice Prashant KuRiar 13hra Writ No. 4831 versus S?"? a?s^i?-^s j'iis?^^4 <?ya.f°i A' smt. ana Shri Varun Sharrna, counset for the petitioner. Shri A"/ind Dubsy, counsei for rBspondents No. 1,2 & 6. Shrf Dhe-erai Kumar WanMiede. Advocate on of Shri Radha Kishan Gupta, counsel for the respondent No.5. la?l&*T gSET£?I^~sS.I i li.l~^S5£ A^"?'l^n>I ^ n^£^n^'?^"^^ 3n£_iff~ -i^^^3fet^^*s^a s'ya.^^St .^•^SP' ^MI 1 t=Fs 111 tVN UNU^K AH 1 t^Ls £.£^i£^f Ul* 1 Hls CUNS 11TUTIQN O? ORDER (03.12.201' 'he petitioner wouid submit that after grarit of suc-cession certificate by t"s concerr'ed Court In fa'vQur of respondsnts No. 1 to 3, a" applicaSort for r^voc^tlon of s^ld cortiflcstQ hss b^sn pfQf^frod by th^ p8tjtionsf, how^v^f the sBJd' pssition Is psndlnQ slnes ^is yssr 1^^9 snd is n^t bslny dlsp^sd of, (2) counse! woufd submtt that the instarit petition may be uispused c" with a direciiQn to the conc'emeu CQurt where ths revocation ^ppttcstlon is p^ndiHg IQ yocldB tho fn^^&f '^thln s f^ssonsbte tlin^. C3-?' ^i't^ pf^^^ut wrtt ^s'tltlon Is pQndlns slncs ^^O^. It ni§vIs^ oosslvte (3) that the concernad Court is not proceedina ahead because of Dersuencv uf this writ petitiQn, thwefore this Court does not deem it propsr to issue any ulf^etlQH §tthls stgyQ; ho^'svsr If tho ^^t.itiOTiOr fnov^s ^ny sppiic^tjon with 3 prayer for eariy of the for revocation of the sue-cession certificrate, »is exuected of the eoncemed Court to deai with the aDoHc'atlon and ma"" endeavor to uisposQ of the mattsr expsditiousiy. (4) With this obssfvatlon; th^ Instant ^Btltlon Is ^is^sad of. »^^" iudge