yo ' ® giuision Benc N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT 0%T;QA, BILASPUR c.G_. ritA eaINo.- \4_ of2011 W Smt._Durga Devi ashyap’,Wlo Shri ' u { Surendra Kashyap, aged about 5O years, Caste-Kadhhi, R/o Nirala Nagar, New Bu$—Stand,i Near Geeta Lodge, Bilaspur, Tahsi!‘ & District-BHaspur 2 (cs—w" 3 f APIf-'‘ELLANT/ / vERsus f I ; RE§PONDENTS:"1.” Amrik|al_Saluja,‘aged about 33year's, - gr ‘ S/o ‘ Late iHarnamdas SalUja,’ .’ a 15 Occupati’on-CuHiTvation; ‘R/o Village— : ' 43 Sendri,Tahsi|&District—Bilaspur(C.G.) ‘ 1 Rajesh ‘ 'Sal'uja, S/o Late Harnamdas Saluja, aged about 47 years, Ashok vKumar Saluja, ,S/o V Late ‘ Harnamd'as Saluja, aged ab0ut 4 years, Amarnath ‘Saluja, S/o Late Harnamdas " ,y Saluja, aged about 58years, ' V ' ‘ Respondentsd‘no.V2-to'4 are RloNariyaI, I r ’ r Kothi, ,Dayalbandh, Bilaspur, District: 3%“ [if went. Hug ah‘h‘y‘w‘ a Ix Bilaspur(C.G_.)[¢¢4 ”L? $.o.n..3;; o_ smt..Tairus 'Bai, W/o‘,Late Shri Ben, ‘xf‘ f Adult, R/o Village Sendri, Tahsil & District—Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 .Smt. sarwahti B‘ai,W/o Late Shri ltw_ari, L /z aged-abo-ut60 years, ' ' ‘ ‘R‘anjeetfS/o Late Shri, ltwari, aged about 4O years, ' Balwant, 3/0 Late Shri ltwari,’ aged, about 32years, I ‘ ‘ Raj'Kum‘ar, S/o Shri ttwari‘, aged about 27'years,_ ' r K ‘ ’ v : 10. satyam‘Bai, D/o Shri Itwari, ag'e‘d about ~ 23 years, ’ ' r ‘L ' h I , . : Abpeliant HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Appeal No 347 OF 201a Smt. Durga Dgvi Kashyap VERSUS Amrikia: sasui‘a & Others Respondents WRIT APPEAL UNDER SEC 2 SUB-SEC (1 z OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTS (APPEAL TO DIWSION BEITICJ ACT 2006 9.3. Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri 8: Han’bie Shri Radhe Shyam§$harma, JJ. Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal Advocate for the appeliant Shri A S Kachhawaha Dy Advocate Genera} fur the State 3‘? RDER GRAL Paswd on th:5 05‘ day cf August. 201 1 Learned counsel appearing for the appeliant, on instructions: seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this appeal with liberty .to fiie a review petition. It is ordered as prayed for. Accordingiy, the writ appeai is dismissed as withdrawn with the ; above-stated liberty. On the question of delay, it is for the learned Judge before whom review is filed to consider and pass the appropriate order. em.” x AT ) ( /i r w. Sd/- LEMVin‘ ,SATISH K. AGNlHo'nu Sdl‘ ‘ Judge Ra‘dhe Shyam Sharma Judge