•:M IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (2271 N0. ^^9- / 2010 S.B. PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF Arjun Lal Binjhlekar S/o| IJ Budharu Ram, aged about 271 lij years, R/o Village Baputola,! I Post- Chichola, Tahsil-l!lj Chhuriya, Distt.- Rajnandgaon I !; (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS ^ , \^.^^ ..•^•^ .^""w^~ .\^{ ^^y .^•"'.^ "y '.^w^' ..." ^:^>'^^'" ..^<-" .,..1S ^^^•:&:x5y^^ ^^^^%,. /^.^^^^ • •* ^. / '^ '--w: It' ^/^/^ \ % i .07(^.^T^.i.,...% % '^ "•^^BS^ 1. The Chief Medical & Health I | Officer, District Hospital | 11 Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). i| 2. The Executive Engineer, r l ! Public Work Department |1| (Building/Road), Division- | Khairagarh, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). I | f!3. The Sub Divisional Officer, :| Public Work Department | (Building/ Road), Division- Dongargarh, Distt.-; 11 ; ^ . Rajnandgaon (C.G.). : y|:li 4. The Tahsildar, 1 i^: Tahsil- Chhuriya, Distt.- i|i Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ; ll: 5. The Government of Chhattisgarh, Through- the Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE "% / :fty CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^— !! i I II :!;.l j'H'^ Hliiil 1; ill! M MJ! fil II -N JHl !1111 d! II I! liill jiii'i! iiii il I. [. m :r!';II: '1: !'lil tll i;l :L;; liril II il l^ll I! N1:11 .^:l!t l' ;^. ^ fflGH COURT OF CIfflATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &B: Hon*ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition 1227) No. 6102/2010 PETITIONER RE8PQNDENTS Arjun Lal BinjMekar Versus The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Districl; Hospital Rajnandgaon and ofliers Appearance: Shri Samir Singh, counsel for the petitioaer. Shri R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 and 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDIA ORAL ORDER (23.10.2010) The trial court has rejected petitioner's application under sub section 2 of section 80 of CPC refusing the petitioner's/plaintiffs prayer for leave to file the suit before expiry of statutory period of notice. (2) Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ifae plaintiffhas filed the suit seeking pennanent injunction to restrain the respondents in raising construction of Public Health Centre on the govemment land on the groud of alleged inconvenience and fhe inconvenience to the members oftbe locality and also on the ground ofnon-suitability ofthe land- (3) The trial court has passed a detailed order and has also that the plaintiff has no locus to maintain the suit as also u that the plaintifif is not going to sufifer any personal loss or inconvenience if the subject construction is allowed to be raised. Thus, the trial court has found that fhe present is not a case where fhe plamtiffs prayer for dispensing with the period of statutory notice and allowing him to file the suit before expiry ofthe statutory period as prescribed under section 80 ofCPC should be pennitted. (4) In the opinion ofthis court, the trial eourt has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercise ofjurisdiction. ^ _ _ . .r^ (5) Present is sssSt a petition under article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. (6) If the interference is not made fhe plaintiff is not going to suffer any prejudice or such injury which warrants interference by this court at this stage. (7) Consequently, the instant petition has no substance. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge (^n