c^-s--fc£--^i;@ a^-^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR- w.p. rci No. v ^?) /2007 S.B. Aged about - 6& y»-s. R/o.- Dewangan Para, PETITIONER -, "• x^ Dhanji Dewangan .^•••^' s/o.-r^^^rt'^, ,^^;" ^^"' ^ ^' :y:^/y Champa, Distt.- Jangir- ^•''^ ..v '^'^...-" Champa (C.G.) ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS . 1. District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) ; A ^^^ ^yy ^^tl',M:v^ Officer Incharge, Brahch Office M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., Babla Complex, G.E. Road, Near Coffee House, Raipur (C.G.)Through:- Power of Attorney Holder namely Mukesh Verma S/o. G.C. Verma , R/o. C.M.D. Coilege Chowk, Link Road, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ Santosh Kumar Dewangan S/o. Late Pitambar Lal Dewangan, R/o.' Main Road, Navdha Chowk, Post Sakti, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) '^- -^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR OUASHMENT OF THE PROCEEDING PENDING IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT 3UDGE BILASPUR AND TO PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTIONS. HIGH_C^QURT OFCHHATTISGA_RH_:_BJLASPUR WRIT_PETmQN^CLN0.2883_QF 2QQ7 PETITIONER Dhanji Dewangan Versus RESPQNDENTS District Judge, Bilaspur & Others (Writ Petition under Articte 227 of the Constitution of tndia) Slngle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 6th day of September, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 obtained loan from respondent No.2 i.e. Ashok Leyland Finance Limited for purchase of a vehicle bearing registration No. MP26 E 8211. At the time of obtaining loan, the borrower entered into an agreement with the respondent No.2. As per the said agreement, if there was any dispute between the parties, the matter was to be placed before the Arbitrator at Chennai (Tamilnadu). 3. On account of default in making payment, the respondent No.2 placed the matter before the Arbitrator at Chennai. The Arbitrator summoned the petitioner as well the respondent No.3 to appear and participate in the arbitration proceedings where they remained ex parte. 4. The Arbitrator after considering the submission made by the respondent No.2 herein passed the award dated 22/11/2000 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed execution proceedings before the 'District Judge, Bilaspur. In the said execution proceeding, the petitioner filed his objection regarding the jurisdiction of the District Judge, Bilaspur. According to the ff "a^ %, -^ s '/ Gowri petitioner, the objection raised by him was not considered by V^e learned District Judge in its letter and spirit and proceeded further in an illegal manner. Thus, this petition. 5. The petitioner has committed default in making payment of loan, which was obtained by him from the respondent No.2 for purchase of a vehicle. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 placed the matter before the Arbitrator at Chennai, where the petitioner has not appeared in spite of summons issued by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly passed the award in favour of the respondent No.2. 6. In view of the said award, the respondent No.2 approached the District Judge, Bilaspur for execution of the arbitral award. The learned District Judge after considering the objection raised by the petitioner and the submission made by the respective parties came to the fact that the property is situated at Bilaspur and accordingly, the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was rejected. The petitioner has failed to make out a case. The order passed by the learned District Judge is just, proper and does not warrant any interference of this Court. 7. In the result, the writ petition being bereft of merits is liable to be and is herebv dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri ,- ' Judge