\s^. cf 'l-o7' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 w.P. fC 1 N0. / ^ C^- /2007 PETITIONERS ^^ C^'.-'''rr^"'' '. -^••••<^••''^.•••'' ^..••^y' / /:!. Alvish Ekka, S/o. Binku, Caste-Uraon, aged about <?"!?.. years, 2. w ./••,«'••„V:- yy ^' .<?" '<fw~^ ^••^•r'5st^FS*w^ /"^ w^ tf. ^-^"^ ff Stf . \ ^,^^* a'^"—s..3 ' SV »s<»f" RESPONDENTS: ^ Vijay Ekka, S/o. Binku, Caste- Uraon, aged about£S.. years. <d^ 3. Mq-MeJlawLSq^w/o. Binku, Caste- Uraon, aged about..7.(.. years All Resident of Village Rengale (Baliya Toli), P.C. No.18, R.I. Circle, Bagicha, Tahsil Seel Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Fulmani, Wd/o. Matiyas, Caste Uraon, aged about 70 years, Resident of Village Upka Musgutari, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2. Mini, D/o. Matiyas, Caste- Uraon, aged about 45 years, Resident of Village Katig, P.S. and District Gumla (Jharkhand). ^-3. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) ^. WRIT PETITIOBLUNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILA8PUR S.B. : HON'BLEMR.SATISHK.AGNIHOTRI.J. WMT PETITION <Q No. 1366<rf2007. Petitioners AlvishEkka&Odiers Veraus Respondents Falmani & Others Present: Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, Advocate for the prtitioaer. None appears for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on 9a ofMarch, 2007) 1. This petition under Article 227 challenges Ihe vatidily of tiie order dated 7.2.2007 passed by the Civil Judge Class II Jashpur, m CivU SuitNo. 45-A/2004 (43-A) whereander the application ofthe petition filed under Ordex 22 Ride 4 has been dismissed on the ground that Ifae deceas®dFulmaai left behind her legal representatives Jyoti Ekka, Balam Dina, Firiska and Rajesh etc. The leamed counsei disputes the finding of the facts recorded by the Civil Court. It is a question offact which can aot be deeided ia a petition under Article227 ofthe Constitution. 2. It is well settled principle of law that under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction of judieial review oflfae order passed by tiie Court below, in the evwt, Ihere is manifest and appareat error on the face of Ae proceedings based on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to tfae provisions of law or there is grave failure ofjustice or grave injustice has occasioned thweby. Furfeer, this Court should refrain itself from entortauung a petition in rts supervisoiy jurisdiction if Ihere is no pCTversity, irregularity or illegality ia the process of decision, not in tiie decisioa 3. Applying the abovesetded principles oflaw to the facts of%e presentcase, itdoes not warrant interference with Ihe decision passed by tiie Court below. 4. Thus, tfais petition is dismissed, summarily. No order as to costs. ~—— Sd/- SatishK.Agniliotri Judge Anut .-/" sass aa Wl^S&S: ^^