IN THE HONBLE mGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. f227VNo. ^3 /2011 p'^.^^-f PETITIONER PLAINTIFF KashmiraSingh, S/o Joginder Singh, aged about 39 years, Caste- Sikkfa, General Power of Attomey Holder ofJoginder S/o Late Deshraj Singh R/o Opp. ShwetaNursingHome, D.D.M. Road, Gunmanak Steel Industries, Korba, Distt. Korba .*^vy!V- f!)'^f. <t/..5''" ^- RESPONDENTS DEFENDENTS VERSUS f' i' Anaaroath, S/o Netram Sahu, aged about26 years, R/o Raai Road, Purani Basti, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Tahsildar, Korba, Tahsil Office, Korba (C.G.) 3. <StoteofChhattisgarh, Through fhe Collector, Korba. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETmONER :- As stated in the cause titte. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS :- As stated in the cause title. PARTICULARS OFTHEORDERAGAINST WffiCH THE PETmON IS BEDSTG MADE :- The present petition is being preferred against the order passedon 22-10-2010 by the leamed II nd Civil Judge Class-I, Korba, in Civit Suit No. 30-A/2010 (Anncxurc P-1). ^t-A^ y l'. .t :0'li HIGHGOURl@BI©HHM-I'IS©^f»IIA»BlLASRUR :'l-';I^.VVR11WETIW©NS(22ZWNC^^6i^^ <>ETITIONER f^lMFE : l^shmiraSingh Versus AmainatH arid others: EiEEENlMWt ;VURlliR@IMlBrt SyN@E AR3'l©Lea27^1=^THE' ;;.%Ky^l!i^INH®reRi(B :.;:l7 :. •S! 7(Si^l BlnlKffiWc»n"BiliEK'Sttii?N.I€..yi>iaaK»^U.l;:.l.t; Present5a^Bnii^^yr'iaijara^llse0ui^l^^he£RetBi£iner; ^•:'^^:..:';:ggn^^BBig^I.t-fe!!-:.:;-:1:'-^^ :.^ ::^ssed'cMn?S8S8iBfiiii|uiw>^ 1):';','^:,. ::.'•::: .• ' l-leaKlonadmissiQn. 2. TMe^ihstant petitkm te 22^©-2CMOpassedbythfeSeeohdC^ ©iwtSyit NQ. ^)-A^W v^ereby.^ f^l^deMtftJefendaTrt No.1 for^ettins^iye^^^ :was?altowed.'.?:'::.-.:;:'.^^ .:, : •'.•',';•;.:'.; 1 3. teSm^ Wunset ^ fie^p^^ that wnthoutsHt^nggQodt^iy^l^de^ appljcatjon forsettlng asjde the^^<^ IwngpeF-seillegalancld^eiFvestobesetasicle. 4. Having heard learne<J^^ hawng perused^^he p^er im arinexed wfth the ?petiti6M^ I do not flnd any sutetanee l W& petition irarrarrting irter ren(^bfthlsC^ ^ extraordinaFyjurisdi(^GffiyndeT^iGle^o^fce©oi^ution^^^^^ •India,,:.":.: : •••1;. }: ,::',' ':. :. .l...:,; ••; ;•" ..::, ;•,';' : : ': • •' . 5. Thejgroynd tat^ by ^^ flled unider ©rder!9^le ^ ^Gi^wssiffi^ •;::!ll:^'..?.::^l'''!^'^i:l'':::''l'K^^ never ^rved ufron him and^e^i'^ .•'^:. er^oreenaentT^grding refu^ o^isumm^ Kw not correct. The leamect trial Gourt after taking Int® corisideratton evei^ aspeirt of the matter ^ the Courtsshould be Ifberal in allowingsuchapplicatlons,riglTtly aHowed the applteation. S.ltisvrellsettledRHhNpleoflawthatthisC^ of |ts supervisor^ iurisdietion under ArtiGle 227 of the Gonstituti6noftedia,shou|dreftainitselffrominterferingwiththe order passed by the Court t>etow, exeept in such cases where perve[^^itlegality,lFFe@ulantywJuristfkrtionaterroriswn^^ onthefaGe<rfther^^,whic^isnotin^ 7. Aecordingly, Ihe petitron being xtevoid of sufastance is tiabletobeandisherebyrejected.Noorderastocosts. Sd//- N.K. Agrawal Judge