@ ^c^- . IN THE HIGH GOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. C.C WRIT PETITIONNO. 2-3^ 9'./2'0r3-/ / 227 of the Constit.ution of PETITIONER! 1) Go'.'ind Ran A^av/al abosrt 45 veais, S/o late Ranieshwar Lal AgrawaL Golal Chand Agrawal, aboiit 4: S/o late Ratneshwar Lal Agrawal. years, S/'o ^l Tppt^tidr'3 K^iitn'st* 5.3P/1 ^niit 90 x^sr^ -^ f ^ »»flrf1,rt-f**.\*A-S5,JL36b.U^AAAAhI»^ Vh^^<\^ ^3^f\»f\St^t f-l-f Y^r-fcS^t^- S/o late Lal Aeiawal. 4) Chand Agrawal, 34 year; S/o Me Lsl A^rawaL ^. ^7..-' 5) jesh Kumar Agratval, 2S vess, /o late Raineshwar Lal Aigrawal. f-i i -E ») Smt. Sai/itri Devi, aboat 60 years, Wiclow of Rameshwarlal Afirawal, ') Kumari Sweta Asra'A'al, about 24ye~ss, D./c late Rau shnrar Lal AgfawaL aii of Ward no- 12 stalioii Road. Sakti. t. Jatiigir t.li a (C.G.) ^7171?^:TTS: ? ^-/^^.h-? i_.' fr_? ^ V 1-1 1) Mangelal Agrawal, about 65 years, S/o Badlu Ram ,4grawal, President aim Maiager, Sto Ram Chand Maivadi Panchavati Mandit" Trust Sakti, Distt. Jaijgii" - Chauipa (C.G.) ^fej. •f.-:\ 9.'i Smt. (^odwari Dew. D/o late Rameshwar L abom 'jt-. years, AgrawaL Lal Agrawsl, R/o D-11/6 Dipka, PC Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) wite or SharAar Dipfca, Devi D/o j^,3tli5£11^3t i-'Sl Smt. Seeta Agrawal aged about 50 years, w/o Roshan Lal -^grawal, R''o Gaidhi Ganj, Distt, Rgig !r-t r* \ (.U.u-... ••'< f!^" Mmmi @ Nirmala De"i,»B./o late P^tneshwar Lal Agrawal, about. 36'.years, W/o Manoj Agrawal, R/o Shiv D:m»PO.Dairi, andDistt-Korba (C.Gj ^ n/( "ft vai Lal Agrawal, aged- aboTrt. 32 3/ears, -wife of Pawan AgrawaL R'b Waixl no 16 Khetrqpur, Post. Satnbalpur, Distt. Sambalpur (Oiissa) Smt. Unmla Devi, D?6 late. P.ameshwar Lal Agrawal, about 30 yeys, Wife of R^kumar PahwaL PJo near State Banfc cif India, Naua main road, F'o. Naila, Distt. Jasmgir- Champa (C.G.) 11 Smt. Kristoa Devi, D/o P^meshwal Lal Agrawal, aboiit 27 yea-s, wife of Pradeep AgrawaL K'o through Trailors, Ram Para, (C.G.) TTT [ON 227 OF THE CC*NSTITUTIC)N OF A FOR.ISSUANCE OF APPROPRL4TE WRIT OF /~-'Wi^TJf~^' '--'ll'l^-lli—^. U.l.^p^^U^Uli.iy,.,., ,^,-^;^^^,^^,^ XH -22 1 :;;i :,. sfSwss ill'l !1: I, ^^';{®t :i!;|-i'^": |I ' 5tt*t .<tl^t i,u*^ i^^lSlSNi-SSBISiSi^ *tmptrw-ii«>N-^-^l'i "fl^ 28 SiSSt itWWt Wit 5hri Vishnu Koshta, eounse! for i-ieard. By this wrrt'fpetition filed underj India, the petitioner has chdllenged th^ the Civil Judge, Class-I, SaK+i by which) (ippticatlon of the. plairitiff passed defendants are bound bythe written s' t ': ' „.': • ' thsir ancestQr'^Ramedhwar. Article 227 of the Constitution of order dated 18-7-2003 passed by [the lear-ned Civil Judgealtowin9 the 4n order to the effeet that The Itrrement (pieadings) alr'eady filed by that A perusa! pf the order reveals the dispu+ed premises was fiied by Shj'i Mandtr Trusr, Sakti agalnsT deceased •filed wnttenstatementandafterhear'i^ also frdnied. I'f'dppeai-s+ha1' thereaftl fher-efore, the piaihtiff ffioved an app!i4a C.P.C. for" br-inging the iegal heirs of that application was ailowed cnd the brought on record. It aiso appeaps vide Anhexure-P/Sthatl'lae legal heirs^] ^ '• • .'•••: •• ^'^ right to fi!& any acyitiondl wr'itteristat^r filed by ancestorr'is binding on them retying on the dsci^ion qf thjs Court rejii the mcitter of Sm'fc Kalawati &ipta Vs^ tf'ieagplieation. H "•lllint ^T TC%T <l"lt{l< ^S aiNtt 3fiNt he petitioners. tbe suit regarding:eviction from 'i Ramchandr-a Marwacli, Panchayati [lameshwarlai and Rameshwarlcl had eari^g both the parties the issuesAere |er thc •tenanf Rameshwal- Lol ^ie8, ic|ation under Order 22 Kule 4 of fhe de^eased Rameshwar Lalon r'ecord and )al heifs of Rameshwar Lal were t>~;..; ' . • i -: : ^ ' ~ : thi^ the picuntiff moved an appiicatioh ^tf deceased Rameshuia^ Lal havs no ?•'• ~"~ tment and as the wr-itMn Statemerit | •t .. • '....•^- '^ -.i'lj land the iearned trial iCourt aftei'li re^orted irr2001(1) C.S.L.J.169 in| Krishno Kumar & Otfiers alSowediJ 1 {^1<; NB •B-WS. !!i:M:rn' t; SU! :;^s; ffl:i]'S 11'- 1. '•y. M- ; •^' liu ^s ^T'mi;Biwi, ^wiSswsj/fiwii^t ^ fiti'ni-in*n<*> "w^ UB •)& Sn 'BCTSrW9 -2- bl/ order The grievance of th®leorned true that as per the Isiw laid down deceased ave bbund by^ ttie written Rameshwor Lal. But, the triol Court is qn appiication under' Order 6 Rufe 17| statement. A bare perusal or this reiter'ated whgt has beeh held by judgment. It hds nowher'e mentioned are not entitled to move an application to airiend the written statement. Itl statemant fiied by deiieased Rameshwdr the deceased plaintlff, It Has alsd the petitioneM are not entitled to 17of+he C.P.C.. ; Therefore, I do not find any s^: same istiable to be dismisgecloncl it is cduriset mo«e ^>i^ET(^[Ti 1^P^Tf^ Ir^^t ^l'^lt^l ^^r for the pstitioner is +ho+ it is this Court the leqatiheirs of the jtatemenf fi.led by their ancestory |no+ allowin9 the petitionerd to move |of the C.P.C. to amend the w,"itten reveals that the trial Cour-t Fias 1'his Cour* in the abovementioned |hat the legai heips ofthe deceased fundsr Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. [sjniply said that whotever written Lal is binding on tMe legai heirs of mentioned in this opder that |e an appiication under Order 6 Rule nAvhere St(:>Stance in this writ petition and the 4ismissed. SdA ~—-i L.C.BHADOO 1 Jlidge' , ^ !,ii vs• 39 n •