IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘ITISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (227) NO. é2& £7 OF 2009 IS.B.I PETITIONER Non Applicant / x J Rajeshpuri Goswami S/o. Goverdhan Puri Goswami aged about 38 years R/o.Near pani Tanki Kududand Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.). Thourgh : — Smt. Pramila Goswami W/o. Shri‘ Satyanarayan aged about 35 years R/o. Kududand, ~ Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Applicant Smt. Geetanjaii W/o. Rajeshpuri, aged about 3O yearg Cast Goswami R/o. Ashok puri goswami/Neewas Vili — Rawabhata Thana Khamtarai, Distct Raipur (C.G.) Presently local R/o. C/o. Madhuiika bosh 13 Parijat/ Rajkishore Nagar Thana Sarkanda District Bilaspur (C G) Tahsii and District RaIpurwE G ) ( . 24' The Collector Bilaspur (C G ) 3 General Public Non Applicants WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l "ulglg’a 9L4 K'4\ Q§ IAIPC2,>>) Nov 6L? ‘7 mm ,‘20G‘f m m (Wm- m mfm'm am wwm mmmam WWWtYWmH awarffcmanéw 3.8. Hon’ble Shri Justice N.K. Aqarwal 03 -1 1 -2009 Shri PK. Tulsiyan, counsel iior the petitioner. Heard on admission. Feeling aggrieved by the a der dated 20—08-2009 passed by First Additiona! District Judge, Bil spur in Misc. Civii Case (M.J.C.) No.45l2007. whereby and where nder the trial Court has rejected the appiicaiion filed by the petit' ner under Order 14 Ruie 3 of C.P.C., the instant petition is tiled y the petitioner. The facts briefly stated as wilder: The respondent preferred application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for custody of minor children aged about 11 and 9 years. The petidoner herein filed his reply. The respondent adduced her evidence! and thereafter since 18-08-2008, the proceeding is pending due toldelay and tactics adopted by the petitioner herein for petitioner‘s evidence. Even then, instead of adducing his evidence, the petitioner herein fried an application under Order 14 Rule 3 of C.P.C.‘i for framing of issues which has been rejected by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Trial Court ought to have framed issues as proposed by the petitioner. After hearing learned couhsel for the petitioner and after perusing the order impugned, in the considered opinion of this Court . “5,, L a I, . Hy as,» .1»... *wmwww My (xv?) M» 6L4”? 0i r E a; mm (Wm “*‘Wm a;mawraa . mm Manfa’wiw ammmw’ WWWiiWW ,‘tr— the learned trial Court has not committed any ille§ality leading to manifest injustice to the petitioner warranting interference of this Court in exercising of extra-ordin jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Misceii neous proceeding for custody of chiidren is pending before the trial Court since 2007. Before 18-08- 2008 evidence of respondent was ompiete and since then on some ground or other, the petitioner as taking time to adduce his evidence and only thereafter, the pplication for framing the issues was tiled and thus deiaying the pro eedings. Furthermore. the parties to suit are always free to challenge the interlocutory order passed d ring its pendency in an appeai which may be preferred if circums noes so warrant and thus. in View of the above, the petition being d void of substance liable to be is hereby dismissed. N.K.Agarwai Judge Kvr v‘" ‘X d/ t wwwavw "