1,'GK COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BiLASPUR V. P.fONo. 5679 of 2006 Pefflioner Versus Ajay Kumar Soni, Proprietor of M/s Vipiav Gas Agency (Ailotted under Freedom Fighter Quota), S,'o l^ts Shri Parasram Soni, ^ed about 51 years, Siddharth Chowk, Tik'arapars, Rsipur (Chhatb'sgarh) Hmdustan Petroteum Corporaston umfted, ihrough Senior Regionai Manager and constltuted Attorney, L.P.G. Regiona! Office, L.P.G. Boitimg Plant, Mandir Hasaud, Distt. Rsipur (Chhattisgarh). UUB8T WRiTPETmON_UNDERARTjCLES226/2£U)ETaE •mONUNDER, COSTtTUTiON OF INDiA ^g- }^0f) ^|@ ^Af. Justicc Sstlsh K* Aainjhotrl 'ao. n'uii uie ivii. uuaui-e «<iuSii Shri Prashant mishra, Semor Awocate wnh Shri B. D. Guru, Advocate for the peSiSioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, Advocate forthe respondsnt. ORDER (Passed on {his 16"' day ofAprii, 2007) 'v I . l.CI.IIsrned counsei appearins for the petiSioner, submiSs that this Court vids order dated 19.8.2005 passed in W.P.No. 2649 of 2005 (Ajay Kumar Soni Vs. Hindustan Petroleufn Corporation Lirnited) has observed as under;- "!t is tnse that uniess the probate proceedings are Snaiized and probate is granted {he dispute cannot be re-soiveci by way of this writ pettUon. tn the Circumstances the 3 Additionai District Judge, Raipur i's direded to dispose of the probate proceedings expedifiousiy and the parfes l.e. the ',egai hesrs of Late Parasram Soni shali be bound by the resuit of the probate proceedings, thereafter, the respondent Corporation can consider Uie ciaim of Uiess persons, in accordance with iaw, and ths rutes & reguiafons." r !'!KI^"wt^w^3S^ '•'5fn/".i'ss-'''- 2. Leamed counsei for me petitioner furftar submiis that fte 3 Additionai District Judge, Raipur vkie ordsr dated 4 March, 2006 passsd jn M.J.C. (ProbaSe) No. 2/2002 (Annexure P/1) has granted probate in favour ofttie petittoner, 3. Shri Bhishma Kinger, Searned counsel appearing for She respondent submits <hat In view of the probate granted by ttie 3 AdditJonai DisSrid Judge, Raipur, in favour of the petitioner, the representation of the pefitioner shaii be considered, in accordance with !aw and appropriate ordsr wou!d be passed within stipuiated 4. In view ofthe abovs, nothing sur.'ivss in this matter. 5. The petition is ciismissed, as having beconie infructuous. No order as to costs. T!iaku,- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge €