•€^^- ..--f^^..--'"" .?~;se,3^.^^ fS'^fl:.H^y: n'-1::': '..' 'v. :'-- '"• •' ' ••".'••• .Vs "^ Y-TSQ^ c IN THE HIGH COURT OF_CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (Q No. [2-A^4- 2007 SS Fetitioner / Respondents Smt. Chetna Surana, W/o Shri Anand Surana, Aged about 42 years, R/o Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh - Through Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 5^,2. Natural Estates - Throug^i its Partner, <*P^7 D.P.GandH S/o D.P^andH Aged ~f\\ .A about 55 years/ R/o Nemichand Gali ? No.2, Ramsagar Para, Raipur (C.G.) tt Pratap Singh Kushwakha, S/o Daulat Singh Kushwaliha, Aged about 31 years, R/o Rajputana House, Shanti Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ^^k 22-7 n-"^^ ^&l0'^- WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE(226'OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ~Z^S^^V°~ L ?^@<s^ss®sfiKa&^s HIGM COURT OF CI-IMATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRITPETIIION(C) N0.1242 OF 2007 Smt. Chetna Surana Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. None for the respondent No.2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 3rd day of December, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 17-11-2006 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Raipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 10/2006 {Natural Status Firm &Anothery. Smt. Chetna Surana & Another) by which ttie Misc. Civil Appeal preferred by the respondents No.2 & 3 herein has been allowed and the interim order dated 29-07-2006 (Annexure P/8) passed by the First Additional Civil Judge Class-1 in Civil Suit No.88-A/2005 (Smt. Chetna Surana v. Natural Status & Anothei) has been set aside. 2. At thevery outset, Shri Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, very fairly submits that though this Court on 11-08-2008 granted interim order in favour of the petitioner directing that no third party interest in the disputed property be created or possession of the disputed property be parted with, but the third party interest has been created before the order datedl 1-8-2008 thus, this petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel prays that the Court below may be directed to decide the pending suit of the petitioner at the earliest on its own merits. 3. In view foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, the Court below is clirected to consider the pending suit of the petitioner, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible. -— •Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge