'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR lli!i :i::l' WRIT PETITION N0. ''2^° /3004 / PETITIONER 1. Padmavathi, D/o Saheb Lal Mishra, aged45 years, 2. VinodEumar, S/o Chhotalal Tiwari, aged 27 years, 3. Mayawati, W/o Vinod Kumar, aged 25 years, All the R/o Village-Bhainsamuda, Tahsil-Navagarh, DistrietDurg (C.G.) -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS ^ ^?^ ^%^r ^•^'' w^ ,-yy '^•'.A- y ^c^t 1. SharadJoshi, S/oMadhavJostii, aged 34 years, Occupation- Business, Village & Post Khandsara, Tahsil-Bemetara, DistrictDurg(C.G.) 2. Smt. Madhulika Mangtulkar, W/o Rajeev Maugrulkar, aged]37 years, Occupation-Hausewife, R/o 11 New PanchsUeel Nagar, Raipur P(C.G.) : N 3. Smt. M anjulilca Kotbalkar, W/o ShashikantKothalkar,aged32 years,Occupatioa-Housewife,R/o Village Newaaagar. , 4. BranchManager,StateBankpf India, Branch Nawagarh, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.) 5. BranchManager, Duig- Rajnandgaon GraminBai&, Braneh Nawagarh, Tahsil Nawagarh, DistrictDurg(C.Gr.) WRIT UNDERARTieLE22? OB"B!IE eOSSIITUI!IONOFINDIAIEOR ISSUANGEOFASCTTABLEWRlBi®RaE3ffiSORDIISECTION. S^^^K:.'BK'^''-'-'-tF^^S-g^^"'^"^^•'S'iSSg^!iS:tK''lw"^^SSS •. •%•^•"•^t^"SStS.S^ai. I-HG—78 .i&).:.(:):..^.p..:...^fi. ^ i^nw viva sw^v ^fWSvW, e5'g?Wre, T^TR?y 3iNi?taftsr iwc"! 4 'rs^i' ^!w?r<: ^7 3^1? ZW IJ&^^^..,4 ;, ^t^l Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, j;ounsel for the petitioners. Application (I.A.No.582/'|2004) for urgent hearing is allowed. This petition is filed und^r Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia against the order dated 22.12.^)03 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application filed uader Ord4' 18 Rule 1 C.P.C. has been aliowed. It is submitted that the order pass^d relating to Order 13 Rule 2 is not challenged as revievv has been fi(ed. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tria! C'ourt directed the defendant to leadj made by the petitioners in the evidence m visw of the admission their written statement regarding the relationship. ,1 Having cousidered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record and in vie^' of fhe judgmeat of the Supreme Court reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 (Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander aa( Others), no case for interfer^ice in the impugned order in exercise of extraordinan'jurisdiction undej' A-rtick 226/227 of Constitirtion oflndia is made out. The petition fails and is jiismissed. Consequentay, M.W.P.^o. 193/2004 also stands disposed of t- Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge