».;- "'"'.-(; c^f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fCl No. -9 /^5~ /2007 S.B. ';ji;'" PETITIONERS / PLAINTIFFS ^ 1^--/ <^^ .^;7 ^" y ^.A'^ ^- ^^ ^sP^ ^^' / Ayodhya Prasad S/o. Sevak Ram Chandrakar, aged about 67 years, Bhukhan Lal S/o. SevakRam Chandrakar, aged about 65 years, ^ie.w-s-y. Lal S/o. Sevak Ram Chandrakar, aged about 60 years. ^-4. Sukhru Ram S/o. Sevak Ram Chandrakar, aged about 57 years. 5. Tamaskar S/o. Sevak Ram Chandrakar, aged about 48 years. 6. Chaturthi Bai D/o. Sevak Ram Chandrakar, aged about 58 years. - /7. Hemanlal S/o. Sevak Ram ChBndrakar, aged about 55 years. 8. Kewal Shing Chandrakar S/o. Govind Chandrakar aged about38 years • . •^' (^•^ -r^ 9. Dhaneshwar Singh S/o. Givind Chandrakar, aged about 27 years ^ 10. Kumari Bai D/o. Govind Chandrakar, aged about 50 years. From Kewal Singh, Dhaneshwar Singh & Kuman Bai on account of the power of attorney holder Arun Kumar. •?K 11. Arun Kumar S/o. Govind Chandrakar aged aboyt 50 years R/o. Village : Kamraud, Post Office : Mandraud, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) a- All from 1 to 6 R/o. Village : Tarsiva, Tahsil : Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Through : Power ofAttorney holder Heman Lal Chandrakar S/o. Sevak Rarn •Chandrakar agAl about 55 years R/o. Village : Tarsiva, Tahsil : Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) s^t^ ^ "s;. '^. RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : District Magistrate Durg (C.G.) w Yuyraj Singh Chandrakar S/o. Bahadur Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o. Village : Aktai, ,3. Yogeshwar S/o. Bahadur Singh, aged about 42 years, R/o. Village : Chocha, Rohit Kumar S/o. Bahadur Singh, aged about 48 yeairs, R/o. Village : Aktai, -.5. Gita Bai W/6. Dwarka and D/o. Bahadur SiFlgh, R/o. Village :,Mura. . Q. Kamla Bai W/o. Bhagwati D/6. Bahadur Singh, R/o. Village : Bhansul], Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.) -'.^,*. WAPAt{i.,s^:^. WRIT:PETITIONUNDERffRneLE,227.0F'THE^ *(('2^^:;I:3l''~CONS^ IKU —q C—78 3(1^1^1 fTfN wsi^wnv » 's^ •*iw"\t\, '^^'WT?, f^Tray 3.( S-S- sT^nraqrCrta^) TOnw^ftg3:fCTT ^l*i[^l41'l ?TTC?ff ^ fe^ '^^R ^'sffinw^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. AaArwal 25.08.2009 i~ Shri CR Sahu, Advocate fo|- the petltioners. Shri PK Bhaduri, Panel La^yer for State/respondent No.1. Shri RKJain, Advocate for With the consent ofthe parfies, the matter is heard finally. The instant petition is direc 22.01.2007 passed by llnd Civil by the petitioner against the espondent No.2 to 6. :ed agalnst the part of order dated Judge First Class, Durg, in civil suit No. 66A/06, whereby and w^iereunder the objection preferred jsounter claim preferred by the respondent herein has been disrr|ssed. Shri Sahu, learned coun^el appearing for the petitioners would submit that Instead of | filing fresh counter claim the respondent ought to have preferred separate suit. Per contra, Shri Jain surtsorted the order passed by the court below. j After hearing the counsel ^ppearing for the parties and after perusing the record, in view of jstatutory provisions contained in sectlon 6-A of CPC, the defendar^t can always prefer counterclaim in a suit, the petition has no merit and the court below has not committed and irregularity or fllegallty so asto fnvoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. j p _ ^ -HC—'i TST 'STRRPF, '^IRTTS, TSRTRT^ 3ii^f"?Rr (^3<^> aiTOl'^ll^iW ?qi •sntnaitri?; (T- 1. TOTOR'Bfrflai^i ^rafenih TWi?ff'? feA TfaRSR '^ Sahu It is well settled principle o^ its supervisory jurisdiction under| India, should refrain itself from in( the Court below, except in such irregularity or jurisdictional error] record, whlch is not in the presenlj law that this Court, in exercise of lArticle 227 of the Constitution of jerfering with the order passed by [sases where perversity, illegality, 1 is writ }arge on the face of the lcase. The petition deserves to t(e and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Interim relief|granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge & ,-.'SsS^WVfS^^