^esr^ ^l "i;, •Xss^-^ '"v^.-.^y ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH : BfLASPUR WRIT PETfTIQN N0.1185 OF 2004 PETtTtONER Satruhan Lal Sonj, aged 34 years, S/o Jhumkai Tikendranath Soni, R/o H.No.26/462, House of Ramji, Lily Chowk, Purani Basti, Distt. Raipur (CG). Versus tPONDENTS 1. Smt. Triveni Baj alias Derhin Bai, aged 60 years, W/o S-ate NuSan Lal Soni alias Pilaram Soni, R/o Lity Chowk, Raipur, Tah. & Distl. Raipur (CG). 2. Smt. Rani Bai. aged 46 years, W/o Late Ramhit Soni. 3. Ashok Som, aged 25 years, S/o Late Ramhit Soni. 4. Manoj Kumar Soni, aged 23 years, S/o Late Ramhit Soni. 5. Ku. Shobha Rani Soni, aged years, W/o Late Ramhit Soni. 6. Smt. Rekha Soni, aged 18 yeare, W/o Late Ramhit Soni. All are R/o Hoiise No. Old-26/483/1, New- 3S/463/1, Li!y Chowk, Purani Sasti Ward, Near Bai Poundi Bridge, Raipur, Tah. & Distl. Raipur (CG), present addrsss- Handipara, Near R/o Ku. Rajrani Gupta, Advocate, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Y.C. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 18 day of October, 2008) Tha petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the instant writ petition against the order dated 6-2-2004 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Raipur, in civil appeal No.28-A/2003 arising out of th®order dated 15-3-2003 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the 10ttl Civi! Judge, C!ass-!i, Rajpur, in civil suit No.6-A/2001. * 2) The indisputable facts, in nutshel!. as projei'ted by tha petitioner, are that the petitioner preferred a civil suit for ejectment on the ground of bona S(fe need and arrears of rent. The responrient No,1 herein submitted her ^' i^s...^ written statement ciaiming herseif to be the owner of the piaint schedute house. The respondent No.1 also fited an application under the provisions of t'ne Court Fees Act, 1870 for exemption from the Court fee. After due enquin/, learned triat Court found that the respondent No.1 is getting income of Rs.22,600/- per annum and rejected the application of the respondent No.1 by order dated 19-10-2002 (Ann6Xure-P/2). Thereafter, the triai Court has given sufRcient opportunity to the respondent No.1 to deposit the requisite Court fee, but the respondent No.1 has not deposited the same deliberatety within a stipulated period.therefore, the trjal Court dismissed the counter claim of the respondent No-1 by orrier datsd 15-3-2003 (Annexure-P/45 3) Being aggriwed by the order dated 15-3-2003 th®responrient No.1 preferred a ci'/i! appea! No.28-A/2003 before ths Court of the 4th Addffiona! Dfetrfet Judge, who by order dated 6-2-2004 (Annexure-P/1) altowed ths appeal of the respondent No.1 and set aside the order the passed by the tria! Court by holding that the trial Court has failed to compty with the provisions of the Order XXIII Rules 17 & 18 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "tbe CPC') and delivered the judgment without decree. 4) Shri Sharma, leamed counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner, woutd submit that in the earlier round the appeilate Court confirmed the order of the trial Court with regard to assessment of income of the respondent No.1 and rejected the Misc. Civi! Appeal whereas In the second rounc! the appeltate Court by altowing the cjvi! appeal of the respondent No 1 observed that the tria! Cou'rt has faited to comply with the provisions of the Orcfer XXIII Rules 17 & 18 of the CPC Leameri counsel further ijts that once the Court declined to entertain the party to prosecute the case as an indigent person, the question of compllance of the provisions of the Order XXi!! Rules 17 & 18 ofthe CPC does not arise 5) Having heard learned counsei appearing for the petitioner, ! have penised the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. From the order dated 6-2-2004 (Annexure-P/1), 'rt appears that the ieamed Additional District Judge, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly remanded the case to the triai Court wlth a direction to comply with the prtivisions of the CPC in its true perspectlve and pass appropriate orriers ThuSi the order is unexceptionabie, just & proper and does not warrant any interference ^ :.=3S ^OWft 5) This Court in exereise of its superx-'isory jurisdiction under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain ifseif from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, jllegaiity, irreguiarity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not In the present case. 7i In viev/ of the foreaoina reasons this writ Detition is riisniissed 8) Consequently, NS.pA.').P.No.1062/2004 and the pending applications, if anv. stand disoosed of. — — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge