HIGH COURT OF CHHAI£SGARH AT EILQ§PU§ W.P. $27 N0. 4533/2011 NI ”do ‘ \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (an :Hon’ble m. mam: a, J.) Present:- Mr. Suresh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. ' Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. Respondent No. l not noticed. ORAL— ORDER (Passed on 11/08/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India peu'tionem have challenged the legality and pmpriety of the onier dated 1/7/ 2011 passed by Civil Judge Class-1 Sumjpur District Surguja (C.G.) in civil suit No. 99A] 2009 whemby on the basis of valuation made by petitionels/ plain! 1m in ~’ k reply to the counter claim Court below has pmvided opportunity to plainlill's to valuate the claim. 2. Aner some arguments, counsel for the petitioners submits that counter olm'm as l‘ ed respondents are required to value the suit for recoveiy of possession aher demolition of the structure therefoxe they are not required to (value the claim as mentioned in Para-8 of the teply to counter claim but is \ required to value the relief for possession on the basis of cost of demolition of \ structure standing over the land. /// Pwtl¢nenll’lainti£fs:- 1. Smt. Lalmam' W/o late Ramchandar aged about 51 ycam, 2. Smt. Kamla D/o late Ramchandar W/o Umesh Kumar, aged about 32 years, Both by Caste Chcrava R/o Vilh'age ' Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (CLG.). Respondents/Defendants: Harshvardhau Shanna S/o Kaushlcndra Nath Shanna aged about 24 years R/o Villiage Bhaiyathan Road, Tahsil Surajpur Disuict Sarguja ('c.G.) 2. State of Chhatn‘sgarh, thmugh its Collector Saxguja (C.G.). @ Leamed counsel for the peh‘tionexs furthcr submits that present plainn3s am required to amend their plaint or reply to oountsr claim relating to maintainability of counter claim on the basis of necessary relief not claimed by the respondents, in these circumstances he seeks to vvithdmw this peh'tion with liberty to amend their plaint/mply to counter claim. 4. Consequently, petition is dismissed as withdrawn with‘ aforesaid liberty. LA. No. 1 is dismissed summarily. ‘k Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge No order as to costs.