/..?"»''y.°.••"" il^:'^.y$"-...--' ^ ..'--^'L'.-:\"^('"\ ,-n'^ ^^'^-^ ^y'"' .--''' ysa",,..- ' J^ ^^ ^•" .»••' ^^. ^} StSten^ P S'"R;"?s» •i'aiHa.C iSS.K^ ^^? Qj»- I o-^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 5 B ? 7 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Plaintiffs RESPONDENTS Defendants 1. Srat. Hemlata Kashyap, w/o Gayaprasad Kashyap, aged about 40 years, R/o Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, Talisil &, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Srat. Preru Lata Veriaa, w/o Ajay Kumar Verma, aged about 38 years, R/o Near Nariyal Kothi, Madhuban Road, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil 8s District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS r^ 1. ' Smt. Nirmala Kashyap w/o late Yashpal Kashyap, aged about 35 ^years, 2. Sunni Kashyap s/o Late Yashpal Kashyap, aged about 16 years, Minor, Through - Natural guardian Mother Smt. Nirmala Kashyap. '-'All R/o Magarpara, Samta Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil 85 District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). WKtT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IWDIA CT TOiin I !1: ?ndsi3^ig Q.\ 'L- il'til ari r>w... et|} 43iq/A jo^ 'iBg .iiuefng 4 sij} iou jo jatjisqiw ; si ;ms ufeiu sui :ss|4jed sij? Aq su} Aq p8jja,ejd useq sey ij •sjsuojiiisd eqij •uoseojidds Jisq} ps| •SSBO ay} io uoispep {snl jo| tittiqns p[no/A sjeuoitged eq? pies S4i eqi ®4t's'!Il JSpJQ J9| sssstusip ynoo fsu) 'jig 'JBj}siBsy qns| euo p uoiprlpo. LtOSEoiidde ue p&J :J3pU| usaq sey: -o'd'O sijt jo Ot Aq psjjspjd uoBeoijdde 94} J3| Ijns jiAio Ui jndsefig 'II-SSBJQ -80-i.S psiep ^sp-i'o syt isujBBe •81BtSS4t^9?E .•sjouoRsed ift^u^ kty ^ ^l-Sttojl ^S^ h ^.ikll. l.(h,U]blIb ;B| Aq ps}nosxs Si pssp gji^, psSgije eqi ui p8A|OAyi uogsenb psindsip )!AS ,o upgeidLuoo jsye sjsuoiigsd ogeoiidde pres 34} 'Aipss.iUipv 3j jssunoo peujeei pjeeq SAB^ j ftoijB sxeij o} tySno yhoo jsu} psujee-] +UBAsgej si iusiunoop. p.ies eqi IBIQ ;oj Suuesdde jssunoo peu-ies-j •UO!tB3.!jddB paujesj etjl 'pssoddo SE/A jeAejd ^o esyio sq^ luoji Aeu-'OBB jo je/Aod pojd Bui^ess •o'd'0 stjyo 01 Siny £1. rajsjd 'sousp^e ^|sqt'p%sjduioo 3ABt,i ns e ui ayBUiBjd/sjeuoiigsd syi |i se eje ps+e^ Aysuq s}o^ syj.' ;; , ' •p9SS|[US|p h"y gf J&p.iO1-isp"n 'sjsuonged eq} }unejsuM pue AqsjsLj/A SOOZ/V'-OroN 'eBpn," g.iAio i|ynoj Aq psssed gOOZ Ipspsjip si uogi+ed }UB;SU! aijj. 'pjeeH ^oApv 'V^OQ 'Asqna liysns. uys |ij} joj (esunoo 'SBQ oiuiuy 1343 speBV •X-N ssjisnnjqs SjqiuOH "B'S jajB.ifcuaaj^ite .B>tiy ^^ tblhtB lUhlh '^s^^-w ^^^ tlalth I^IW^ •>T;»lt,>b)'a'^li1®'bUllblh- t&E. pajt> 'hlhlK lls^K- llill.S) l<b l»yKS ZZ-3H-H <-•* ^•.••.•K--iii* HC-22 an^r^f h-u* sn^i ?n*ii^> •(•ifia Kvr' 'S^ -41*IM'tl, afllu'Ko, l»icii'Ml< 3n^?r ira^? ^^C^S3)^-'s'SS^-\ _ "M ^2OT1 IIICTI aitiicn fee?[ff" sii^r tsiiwdfsa ^- parties have aiFeaay examine. execiitant of the said power of in the aforesaid fact situa' Gourt has in its discretibn rejects that the learned trial Ceurt has G :warranting interference of thisi .Gonstitution of India, It Is well settled principle < its supervisory jurisdiction undef Indla,- should refrain fr6m intsr^ Court belov/ except in such ;1rreguiarity 'or jurisdictional. erroi record, which isnot in the presen' The pstition has no- me • dismissed on admission stage. <<>Wifl<il-< »<l*lfil''4fetA<[q«$l< ^?3lPOT3II^t Ihelr. witnesses; executor and ', both have died. ;ion of the case, if fhejearned .trial d the appSication, it cannot besaid bmmitSed any jurisdictional iilegaiity Court under Artlcte 227 of-.the if taw that this^Court, in exercise of Articie 227 of the Constitution of ring with the order: passed by the ;ases where perversity, iiiega!ity, is writ Sarge on She face of^the -case. ; |rit; and the same 'is accordlngly Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge