-.^•^t &;r^s'i« S R^&ii~:S! ,^i»fc ieua'e?""^ c •< (o2L^* INTHEHON'BIEHIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) (ftil'S.^} Writ Petition f<2rN6. S 6 3^5 Qf 2008. PETITIONER PLAINTIFF .^' .-<:%jl/ ../ y.^y' ^%%- ^•^/y A.-' &•"'SPONDENTS :- y. DEFENDANTS Sukhdev, son ofLate Narottam Yadav, Aged about 28 years, Caste Rawat, Occupation Agriculturist, resident of Village Mahasamund, (Ambedkar Chowk TumgaonRoad) Tahsil andDistrict Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS SudhirKumar Chandrakar, son of Bhawarlal Chandrakar, aged 23 years, Caste Kurmi, resident ofWardNo. 13, Purani Basti Mahasamund, Tahsil and Distoict Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh), Punia Bai Yadav, widow ofLate Narottam Yadav, aged 72 years, resident of (Ambedkar Chowk Tumgaon Road) Mahasamund, Present resident of In the house of Shyam Yadav (Railway employee), M^andir Hasaud, Tahsil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA <^^ '^ /^\^w XTte—78 n',y 3il^!g^!fefe 'g'nsff^i'gTiiia; Bli 3 -3^f -41<lll<'l'4, ®flly'i6,fq<?ii'yy,< *n»icfi ghw^i B' 'roiiw^i^w^i 41lie.<i1l imCTl •?'Ss<A ifa^K '^sffinsiT^g S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Asarwal D|y p/^) Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advo| for the petitioner. Shri JA Lohaai, Advocate None for the respondent Ncj Shri Satish. Gupta, State/respondeut No. 3. •' By vvay ofthis petition, the| dated 17.06.2008 (Annexure District Judge, Mahasamund, whereby, the application, filed by| 33 Rule I ofCPChasbeen the notification dated 01.04.83 uader Sectioa 35 ofCourt Fee Acl The main conteation raise<f petiuoner is that, the trial court of terras of provisions contained in not been done and passed the| consideration the notificafion issil Section 35 of Court Fee Act, quashed. Ar ;ate with Shri JK Gupta, Advocate respondent No. 1. . 2 though notice served. Govt. Advocate for the Ipetitioner is challenging the order passed by the First Additional b Misc. Civil Suit No. 01/07, ^he petitioner/plaintifFundef Order by taking into consideration issued bv the State Govemment disrdissed by the counsel appearing for tne ight to have directed an enquiry in Order 33 of CPC but the same has impugned order by taking into .ed bv the State Government under •w^ich is illegal and deserves to be T^w5 ^. "^ ^' / XI-HG—78 's^ ^ww^, wviww, hwvy. 10- o io 3Ilt?I'tR?7 (•^qf^BI^EI; SfT^^f^'fe' ; 'HK <»i'i|i<n~<it!iTipRJf '9 fs^fs TfsRgrc ^aifgtian^si Sab At this stage, counsel for bi ofjustice would be sub served if application of the petitioner/plai CPC, afresh after afibrding due o' .;J and TO deciae me same in accoraa Praver is ailowed. It is directed that the trial c petitioner/plaintiff, filed undsr af&rding due opportunity of hea shall proceed to decide the same underOrder33ofCPC. With the above observatioi and the order dated 17.06.2008 is [nterim relief granfed earlie) the parties fairly submit that interest |he trial cqj.irt be directed to decide the ftiff, filed uader Order 33 Rule 1 of •jportunity of heariug to both the parties lce with law. sjiurt shall decide the applicauoa oftlie Irder 33 Rule 1 of CPC, an'esh after (ing to both the parties aad tfasreaftsr ia accordance with law, as snvisaged and direction this petition is allowed huashed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge