^r^ ;ji:j;l^; VK .!;:.l: im.'5i'^ mm H^^ Hi'.'l^i] c . S-\o IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHAA3PTtSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 W.P. (227) No. 9-gSS of 2010 PETITIONERS APPELLANTS ,,^-^< •.ft.^-^1^^; ^^^-—^" i^A-—-;^ . ^ :1) Mohan S/o. Bihari, aged about 26 years, Caste Kurmi :2) Bihari, S/o. Parabhu, aged about 51 years, Caste Kurmi, :3) Rameshwar, S/o. Bihari, Caste Kurmi, aged about 28 years. ,, All R/o. Pendrikala, Police Station Kunda, Sub Tahsil Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS /:!) Dhannu S/o. Parabhu, aged about 54 years, R/o. Pendrikala, Police Station Kunda, Sub Tahsil Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) :2) Jeemat Bai D/o. Parabhu, aged about 56 years, R/o. Village Bhorpendri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ^ :3) Kumari Bai D/o. Parabhu, aged about 56 years, R/o. Village Hathmudi, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) :4) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Kabirdham (Kawardha) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OF CHHATTiSGARH AT Sinale Bench: Hon'ble ^ustice PETITSONERS RESPONDENTS Writ (2271 No. 283S GF 2010 Mohan and others. Versus Dhanu and othere. Shri HB. AgrawaS, Sentor Srnt» Stu couns^l for fh^ p^tition^rs. Shn PrafuSj Bharat. counsef for r&spondents No. 1 to 3. Shri S^nje^v AgrawaS, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 3. 22? OF THE GONSTITUTION QF €21.09.2010) Ptalntlffs' sult for partition was by and > 07"' Msy, pass&d by the Clvs! Judg®Class - I, Kabirdham. Th©triat Court had a preSlmlnary decree for partltlon ftiereln that the piajntsff for of $n first by the the by frie by" ite and 27a>01a>2009. (2) The modlfled prellmrraiy was not yp by any of the to the sult by filing second (3) The thereafter moved ynder Order 20 18 with Section 54 of C.P.C. The has of by tne P/5, (4) In the flrst of srnpugned order the Civll - $ has that a is in vsesy of ^ie by the In the of the the Court has observeci that be prepared. ^..-^A^ ^' •<2-,<- (5) for the \¥ou(dsubmlt the Court has not the partstion in accordance wlth the by the Clvjl Court earller and has committed an error in the order. (6) Be as it by the the MJ»C.Coyrt has of decree, the can only be by filing a 96 of CP.C. (7) counseS for the has has not yet been prepared, if that be so it is the Court below the so the of appeal. (8) Tha wrlt Is dismissed with the above observation. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge l^