G IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Under Article 227) No. ^Q-^ ^ /2010 £ ^'^ <" '*->"s '-^e PETITIONERS Defendant No. 4,5& 6 ^t^ /^ss^ ^^\y ^SQ)^ ^y-y ' 1] ^-2] RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF ^ ^ 3] / 1] ^ 2] ^4] /5] ^6] Suresh Golchha, S/o. Sameer Malji Golchha, aged about 39 years, R/o. Tahsil Office, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) T.Y. Bose, S/o. T.S. Bose, aged about 35 years, R/o. Bhanpuri, Raipur, Distriet Raipur (C.G.) Rajeev Juneja, S/o. M.L. Juneja, aged about 40 years, R/o. Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Mohanlal Yadav, S/o. Anujram Yadav, aged abojut 44 years, R/o. Labhandih, Tahsil & District Raipur(C.G.) At present R/o. Irrigation Colony, Qtr. No. H-7(B), Irrigation Colony, Balod, Tahsil & Post Balod, District Durg (C.G.) Rakesh Saravgi, S/o. Satyanarayan Saravgi, aged about 50 years, Builder, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) Madan Constructibn, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, through: partner Rakesh Saravgi, S/o. Satyanarayan Saravgi, aged about 50 years; Builder, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) Sunil Wasnik, S/o. Sukhdas Wasnik, aged about 32 years, R/o. Ashwani Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & DistrictRaipur(C.G.) B.S. Naik, S.ub-Registrar, Raipur, DistrictRaipur(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through: Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ....(Respondent no. 2 to &( ^|||, Respondents/defend^^^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA mpH COURTOF CHHATTISGARHATBIIASPCTR W.P. (2271 N0. 2764 OF 2010 PETTTIONERS/ Defendants No.4.5 &6. RESPONDENTS/ Pldntifr Suresh GolcUha and others. Versus Mohanlal Yadav and others. WKTT FETmON UNDER ARTICLB 237 OF THB coNSTmnnoN OF INDIA (Slnele Bench; Hon1»leSIiri N.K. A^sirwal. J.» Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, coiinsel for the petitioners. . Shri Aditya Ktimar, counsel for respondent No.l. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for theState. ORALORDBR (Passed on 28th day ofAprU, 2011) Leamed counsel for the petitioners subnuts that the matter has already been compromised between fhe parties. Therefore, ftie petitioners do not want to press this petition. 2. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as not pressed. KMT Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge