•-*- W THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.('227~)NO. /J'^/2010 PETITIONER Mirchimal, S/0 Safarmal, aged about 50 years, R/0 VIP ^^ a^vu. ciuuu.1. */v jf^/cuo, \ ^-J-;'],"£i^ suitcase show room, neha juice \ ^ .l-t^'efi-y""l" ..-••" center fast trade Malyiya Road, Raipur,District- Raipur ?..-.• 1<' .-:^(y' ^t?> ..^^^ fc<?s?" RESPONDENTS VERSUS f -..._. . _ . 1. Shrimati Godawari Devi, W/0 (deceased) Nathmal Agrawal, R/0 Malviya Road Raipur, C.G. 2. Gopal krishn Agrawal,S/0 Nathmal Agrawal (deceased), Residence of C-2 Ram Nagar, Raipur,District- Raipur, C.G. •^--^<>, WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 CONSTITUTION iOF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE 0V WRIT EWORM OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER FORM OF WRIT W'~F'!,HC>V,^ APPROPRIATE TO THE CASE OR ORDER DIRECT ION AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE WARRANT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justiee Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petitson (2271 No.192/2010. Shrimati Godawari Is. Shyamali Naidu, counsel for fhe petifioner. Wr'rt Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indja ORAL ORDE (2) The petitioner which the p'iainttff and the application tegal heirs of the sole by the trial court vide [21.01J in is the defendant in a suit for evtetion in Devi died duri(^ the pendency of the su'rt Order 22 Rute 3 of CPC was ffled by the F. The said appltoation has been atlowed rdated 17.12.2009. (3) In the present pst'rt'son, the challenge has been made to the order dated 14.12.2009, but there is no avermerrts about the subject matter of the issue decided on 14.12.2009. The petition appears to be filed against that part of Annexure-P/6 which was passed on 17.12.2009 deciding the applteation fited under Order 22 Rute 3 of CPC. (4) On perusal of the order it does not appear that the leamed trial Court has committed any such error in altowing the applfeation under Order 22 rule 3 of CPC which require interference by the Court in exercise of power under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India. Non- ffling of affidavit in support of the application is not such a defect or infirmity which w'li render the said application as not maintainable. \ ^ More so, when the defendant has not contested the application on the ''ground that the proposed legal heirs are not true \ega\ heirs or any w:'^B^sa^swes»ss^^^aasa<.-w ^t s^ v f 1 1 ''"* "lis- other ImaS heirs apart Trom the applteant ofthe application undeTDrder 22 Rute 3 of CPC are in existence. (5) There being present petition filed and 'is jurisdictional error in the impugned order, the der Arttete 227 of the Const'rtution of Sndia Taife at the admission stage 'rtselT. __————— Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge