^ ^;;- .....^^- ^ •^^ ^^..^^•••-•.. >.'(.;::^^!£..^ ...•••^^^1}.l^'" -3^"" ^W fe^^!i^:^..-.: IN THE HON'BLEJdIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION f227^ N0. 6^-5 OF 2008 PETITIONERS : 1. Smt. Kalindri Bai, D/o Bhanwarlal DEFENDANT NO. 2 to 4 Vaishnav, aged about 55 years, 2. Smt. Pushpa Bai, W/o Prakashdas Vaishnav, aged about 35 years, 3. Lochanram Sahu, S/o Radheshyam Sahu, aged about 38 years, All are Agriculturist, R/o Navagaon, Police Station Thankhamariya, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF 1. Smt. Kanti Bai, W/o Shatruhan Das, aged about 52 years, Caste- Vaishnav, Agriculturist/Housewife, R/o Village-Navagaon/m Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) DEFENDANT N0.4 2. ^- DEFENDANT N0.5 DEFENDANT N0.6 Ramkumar Sahu, aged about 34 years, S/o Dasru Sahu, R/o Navagaon, Police Station Thankhamariya, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) Bankelal, aged about 50 years, S/o Manharan, Agticulturist, R/o Village-Navagaon, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Collector, Durg (C.G.) 3. ^- ^ y) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T •;l /G'. ;.,r A',0 -^-SEj •^MT^PT, 'g^TTFT^, [^^IH^< •^ 200g 37F^T-^^(^f3^T) ^l^T^Tf^t^ mi^it^iwii^ ^' I^IW^fNw^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri JusticeN.K. 4garwal 13.05.2009 Shri Sanjay Shyam Agrawa|, Shri Y.C. Sharma, Advocat4 Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate fo^ Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocjate for the respondent No. 5. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panelj With the consent of learned Lawyer for the State/respondent N0,6. counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Both the petitions i.e, W. involves comnion question of law, ofby this common order. The instant petition is direc (Annexure P/l), passed by Civil J ^N^N ^r ft(zt^^R ^>a^?^it¥r Advocate for the petitioner. forthe respondent No. 1. the respondent No. 2 to 4. |P. (227) Nos. 6323/08 and 6503/08 jtherefore, the same are beisig disposed ted against the order dated 25.09.2008 ^dge, Class II, Bemetara, Distt. Durg, in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2007, wtiereby the application, filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 5, under (prder 14 Rule 5 ofCPC, was rejected. Learned counsel appearirjg for the petitioner submits that according to the pleadings of the material issues arises which ought parties in the case, at-least two more to have been framed by the trial court, (i) vvhether the suit of plaintiff i^ time barred (ii) whether the suit is undervalued and proper court fee Iias not been paid. But the application filed by the petitioner was rejecte^l without assigning cogent reasons for it. ^m^r" ^m H^iT^sf rr^Rt^Tf^—FS/95—11 /2008-—1,00,000. ^- \ ^i^T^Tfc^W li^?3TI^TiRi^ Sahu h,^ -g^ ^jTqT^R, '^fr?P7:?, f^TRT^ 0__^J www ^^r^ aqi^T-q^TCrtsi^T) i^iw^fi^^^i Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri ^ No. 2 to 4 and $ supported the c.o ?rimlesh Bajpai, counsel for respondent itention ofthe petitioner. Per contra, Shri Y.C. Sh^ma, counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the impugned order, Bemetara, Distt. Durg, and sui^mits that order is well reasoned and deserves to be upheld. After hearing both the p^rties, having perused the record and impugned order, I am ofthe opii^on that the tvvo issues as prayed, ought to have been framed by the trial controversy. In view of the above, thej directed that the trial court shall the suit and thereafter proceed parties are at liberty to amend the: In the result, petitions are earlier stands vacated. No order alsto costs. A copy of this order be 6503/08. ^Rf^fhr ^Hd? ^ feTst 'd^i^n ^•3t^H3:nt¥r passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, |:ourt, which are necessary to resolve to petitions are partly allowed and it is frame the aforementioned two issues in for trial in accordance with law. The irpleadings, ifsoadvised. [partly allowed. Interim relief granted placed on record of W.P. (227) No. sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge 1 ^{i^€r7r<§'^RH^fR^T TT5 ^-—Fg/95—.i i /2008-1,00,000,