IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR .^y..,.CHHAT"S ^ W.P. No. 'i,'^ft<" of 2004 PETITIONER DEFENDANT ^^^ ^yy -•*•' y^ Gajanand Gupta, S/o. Shrichand Gupta, No. 84 Ward Tahsil and District - Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS Natwar Lal Gupta, S/o. Late Bhagirath Gupta, aged 36 years, R/o. Shiv Trading Company's Building Chhatamuda Raigarh, Tahsil and Dista-ict - Raigarh (C.G.) ^WRIT ^PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION '<>•• RE^PONDENT PLAINTIFF OF INDIA ••'/ TN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR IA^ yt ^ |/ ,^1» iwiaxaaato ®>pta9/Q &ate Sajlaasa>a Oapta» aged ataeu^ S2 years* 2. SBfc. SBsflipa »fl»awalK/o SssSd-^hea ligrayal 8a&* aged aloafc *S yfeara. 3. SBt. Manat.? Agsawal K/o W^d Agrawal, —apEte* -•1 aB®datoat *:S yeaES* Xt.gjeta. to^toew. «. SGifc. W.nde ffis^^ W/b »gwattffA* asefi ai»afe '•*• yeassf ISFagEwr. 5. Sstoss sapfea:: ayb eajacaaa,. aged isbsa-fc 43 feacsr S. aat. Seela Vea».v/9 Itetaa Veau* •gea about <0 7. Sajan sa(pta s/o SaJ^^wad, aged aboat 39 years, •AU »<feB®as&^».8*«'llaca^K.. 15,: SwaSaa^.. .^Jldi Y ^ p Cj^ + .•.)''i-ili»>te. ji ~"' ^ s /^'».^'-<^ l^^gS-^ wy sy ST'Tlfe'IW wn 3iii?i e>ii<t> 2^" 's^ -^wiv\<^, •a-S\w\e, fqyiyy,< ^,p..^G. 3 ^8^/"^ ^2 *.,' sn^?I'<W»i \~a^ •7\ i^anK'HfNsiTOi qt1<11ff4il ^Fl^f'^ ^aififfl SB^HON.Simi JUSTICB tT.K. AGARWAL 3-8-2009 Siddidui Smt. Hameeda Shri Sanjay K. Agr^i Advocate, for the respondetit. With the consent ofl finalty. Instant petition is du1e< 2004 passed by the Distr}ct No. 40A/2003 whereby preferred by the petitiorier/l' and appllcation under rejected before hearing Smt. Siddiqiii, leamejl submit that as per fhe ought to have been heard ^lc its final hearing and coiniaitted gross Ulegality the appeal, and therefore, and the inatter is requtr^c Coiirt for hearing on fhes^ with law on its own nierits ui, Advocate, for the petitioner. iwal wifh Shri Rajendra Tripathi, fhe parties, the petition is heard [lected assanst the order dated 24-8- Judge, Raigarh, in Creil Appeal |and whereunder the application fdefendant under Order 41 Rule 27 6 Riile 17 of C.P.C. have been on merits. coiinsel for the petitioner, would position of law, the applications ^ilong with (he appeal at the time of first appeUate Oourt has pn passing fhe order before hearing |t±iepetition deserves to be allowed -^d to be remitted before the trial applications afresh ta acGordance ^long with the appeal itself. _^.Jl. ___ ._. Order the|appeal settled ^ """^s... •sa"^. ti "^ s J^^ 571^1'^felW "^i s?i^ ^i*{i<t» •I/' ~3^ 'i\M\v}^, Wx{['»'\6, hw-uy. WWff (ta*iiqi *>' :00 311^1 TR%' (1c"3q!»?) ?SIIW ^fe? Sil^t cM<iici4ii *iE*i<rtl' ^f isl<t <^i';'%.E< ^? aiigii siit^T Ccturt. ttl shduld Per contra, Shri passed by tfae appellate Having heard leame^l perused the record, and t|i that such appllcations appeal, I am of the opinio} to be set aside and fhe fhe trial Court wifh a flled by the petitioner shal^ time of final hearing of accordaace with law. Accordingly the ma|t Court with a direction petitioner shall be decidejl final hearing of the appe^l with law as this Coiirt on merits. Since fhe matt4r it is desu-able to decide th4 With the above Sai^ay K. Agrawal supported the order counsel for the parties and having view of fhe settled position of law haye been heard along wifh the |i fhat the order unpugaed deserves mdtter deserves to be reinitted back to dij'ection that bofh the applications be decided by fhe tiial Court at the |fhe appeal on its own ruerits in directions ;ter is reiuitted back to ftie trial t both the applications filed by the by fhe trial Court at the time of on its own merits in accordance not set aside the tmpugned order is pendthg since a long, fherefore, appeal expeditiously. >, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge itii^!^^^ ^:;HT^lr<ra-H^tf^^S';95—l 1 /2003—1,00,000.