Bi».U SMI'A- ...••</^-'" 1 Y0^)^^"^-"" ^^-i^u%^' ,^^^ eiuftt E ilFMfiti ? IN THE mGHCOUItT OF CHHATTlSGARH AT BIIASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271 NO.SS0_OF 2008 PETmONER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS 1. Bhim Rao Patankar son 6f Shivram Patankar, aged about 62 years, R/o Polsaipara, Dui-g, Tahsil and District DUrgfC.G.j. VeRSUS Kala Bai w/o Suklal Dewangan, aged about 55 years. 2. Santosh Dewangan, aged about 39 years. 3. Devcharan, aged about 30 years. 'l .1] l^ K^y% 4. Ram Prakash Dewangan, aged about 27 years. N6. J; to 4 R/o Shakti Nagar (near Durg^ Chowk) Sikola, Tahsil and DistrictDurgfC.G.). .5. Tamesh Sonwani, aged about 22 years, son of Arjun Sonwani, R/o Titurdih, Tahsil 85 District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PE'NTIQiN UNDSR ARTICLE 22TOF^'niB CONSTITUTION OF INiDIA PARTICULARS! OF THE PETmONER:- As given above in the cause title. 2] PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDSNTS:- As given above in the eause title. '• 3] PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/OiJUBBR AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS BNNGJUlADE:- ^. Order dated 05.09.08 (Aanexure P-1) KtiSK.-i.y^St-M^SS^S -HC—78 ^^ ^'sV t^ '3's^'BIHRTO, 'S^wre, ^xniy'j.i _.^£..(J^...^69: sn^T'q^Rr ('yt^'i?) an*^^lR-<i°h "^n sn^rsfi^T^t iinn^ ^ TCTiwaftgan^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Abarwal 26.06.2009 Shri PR Patankar, Advocate Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Advocat With the consenf ofthe parti The instant petitioa is di 05.09.2008 (Annexure P/l) wherel the parties on the application file^l by the respondent No. 1 to 4 under Order 7 Rule 1 1 of CPC,h^ and also the relief of specific pei|formance has not been claimed, directed plaintiff to intimate the cc^irt that in which court they want tofilethe suit. Shri Patankar, leamed coui submits that the impugned order d violation ofprinciples ofnaturalj been passed even without hearing filed by the defendant/respondent tM^^i^i TfR^f ^f fst3t' <t';n^ ^aifOT 3ii^i for the petitioner. for the respondents. is, the matter is heard fmally. rected against the order dated ly, the trial court without hearing Id that suit value is Rs. 80,0007- isel appearing for the petitioner |ated 05.09.08 suffers from gross Ustice inasmuch as the same has the petitioner on the application Ro. 1 to 4 under Order 7 Rule 11 1>«SR:e.. o '3~S[ •<<WW^, •a^\W , fq<?IWJ,< ^d{.L^>......^..&.^... v^v (4cild'!<<t!T) S^^T'^t^iN' ^STT 3TT^?T'9FRh? •<[: Satw ^niwafeT 3ii^i of CPC. He further submits that tl fhe order after affording an opporti^nity ofhearing to the petitioner. Per contra, Smt. Fouzia M submits that the order passed by petition is liable to be dismissed. Having heard learned coun; having pemsed the records, I am c the order passed by the trial court i passed in utter yiolation ofprinci law that no application can be . without hearing the parties and, tl trial court is liable to be and is ac remitted back to the trial court to Ijiear the parties on the application filed by the respondent/defendant ofCPC, andfhercaflerpasslheieasoned^orderinaccQFdancewilhlaw, Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge ebi<Ei[^^ IjlHclf ^f f^SlT <f^-^,l< ^sifmaii^r e trial court ought to have passed |rza, counsel for the respondents the trial court is correct and the |el appearing for the parties, and |f the considered opinion that that bad in law as fhe same has been gles of natural justice. It is trite lecided or order can be passed lerefore, the order passed by the cordingly quashed. The matter is ^fo. 1 to 4 under Order 7 Rule 1 1