w BEFORE THEHON'BLEHIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR fC.G.) ^ra W.P. f2271 N0. of 2010 PETITIONER fPLAINTIFFl RESPONDENTS rpEFENiaANTS) ^WA^ U R "^ i@_l,,, ^^ "^tS :W^ i] *: ' w:^sy:/&.: lil^ Ganesh Ram Agrawal, S/o. Auharimal Agrawal, aged about 43 years, Occupation-Business, Caste- Agrawal, R/o. Jagatpur Dhimrapur, Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. ShivKumar, S/o. GovindAgrawal, 2. Sushila Devi,W/o. ShivKumar 3. Ramesh Agrawal, S/o. GQW Agrawa^, ' i , •" .' '' : ' 4. Pappal,S/o. Shiv Kumar ; > All R/o. Bhaktigali Ganja CKowk, Raigarh, Tahsil iand District Raigarh WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLEZZT'fil^'ri-IEi .1 b CONSTlfUTION OF INDII& %^;-^.&8s> ¥ K °s%: HIGEI G'OURT O^ CHHATTISGARiI^TBILASFUR S.B: Hon'ldfiShriPrashantKumarMishra Writ Petition (227) No. 7050/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS GanesltRamAgFawal .'Versus.' :' . . ;v Shiv Kunlar and others .Appearance: ,;;.. '. ';;:' : ' .'.. . ..' StinRaghvendra Pradlian, couasel for the petitioner. WRITPETlTIDl^^NIIE^affiKraGI.E^TOF^T^ •G'IONSI!njIITia®i[|(3 I]^I^ ORALORBER (06;l2.2Ql6) (2)^:, 'ffiesNffl^eourti Std SSSa^^^i^^aM}^^^^;^e5{^^ Qi'der;passed on .14^I:Q,®1.0:;r.^f''^l.:';il::-';.:l'^ - ,:;::::. 1: •'.:',:: (3j) I^araed counsel ^^^^^ ^ would submit Aat ;1:he affidaYit in support o£^appiieatipa under Order 9 Rul®'7 afiCSPC was^iiof verified properiy aridSEUe efiect oftlie;said ^iscrepancy would *';;'''-:''.^ '::"-".'-;.'-."::''^':.:''.1;'-- • '.'.^.^ '^. •....^';' -'"";:i.. ':"'. .• •: .;• ''':.' - •1;'';::...:" be thatparagraphs ,1 to 5 of^te afBdavi^iHe^uldsiibmtttliat^us^feaftedtriaIcd^ ^have:::gralited^eapplicati6n,''!^2,',:,^.: './:,.^ i:. :':::;: (4) Erem the impugned otdfir^tt }couM not appear Befora the tn^ fabsence from the towri the fsummbns^'vvefe ipa^d; The ;a.Bplieatidn i:i.J: Bll:.l m ^: siSsMMm-^^ -2 ^ under Order 9 Rule 7 ofCPC was presented immediately after their retum from the out station. (5) Leamed Judge has also observed thatthe proceedings in the suit is at preliminary stage therefore in the totality of the circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed. In the opinion ofthis court the application and fhe af&davit is to be read as a whole. (6) Meretechmcalityhas rightly been ignored by thetrial court. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surya Dev Ral Vs. Ram Chander Rai arid others, (2003) 6 SCC 675 has held that power under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India should not be exercised to correct mere errors oflaw and thatlfae High Court should exercise powers in rare cases and sparingly. (7) In view ofthe above, this court does not find present petition worth entertaining, it fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1