HIGH COUR.T OF CHHATTXSGARH AT BILASPUR » rssri&iss^' ;• !'S,%JI.DE'££lrf£&SSS1K& <u ..-pt. W.P. N0. (227) 5422/3008 1. Bhushan Bais S/o. LatE Sukhnandau Bais, aged about 30 years 2; Jethu Yadav, S/o. Gendram Yadav, aged about 35 years 3. Ramnath Patel, S/o. Godhu Patel, svged about 26 years 4. Devanaad Sahu, S/o. Teeju Saliu, aged abbut 25 years 5. Kunj Patel, S/o. KIiorurain Patel, aged about 25 years 6. Arjun Das, S/o. Khemu Das, E^ed about 26 years, Kotwar Vfflage Tuta 7. Kishore Bais S/o. Salikram . Bais, aged about 20 years 8. Awadh Patel, S/o. Prabhuram. Patel, ^ed about 22 years 9. Chateli Bai, W/o. Kunju Patel, aged about 30 years, Saipan.ch, Vfllage Tuta 10. Sonma.fh Pal, S/o. Lalji Pal, aged about 25 years 11. Shaakar Bais, S/o. Radhika Bais, aged about 22 years 12. Sharda Bais, S/o. Jhumuk Bais, aged about 38 years 13. Jawahar Bais, S/o. ChhabiLal Bais, aged about 22 years ^ 14. Jeevan Patel, S/o. Sbivram Patel, aged about 30 years 15. Heera Lal Patel, S/o. Agnu Patel, aged about 23 years 16. Gyaiuk Sahu, S/o. Teej Sahu, aged about 25 years All resident of Vflage Tuta, Post Maaa Basti Tahsil Abhaiipur, District Raipur N» 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through CoUector, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CGj 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur Tahsfl and Distnct Raipur (CG) 3. Tahsildar, Abhaapur, Tahsil Abhaapur, District Raipur (CG) 4. Teej Bai, W/o. Ishwan Prasad, aged about 42 years, R/o. wUage-Tuta, Post Mana Basti, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UMDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE COIiSTITUTION OF INDIA jy Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Panel lawyer for fhe State/resp. No. 1 to 3. Shri Aniirag Dayal Shrivastava, counsel fpr respondent No.4. .->" ''. fSS' The chaUenge ia the piesent petition is fhe impugued order dated 25.09.2007 passed by the Xth Additional District Judge, Raipur whereby fhe trial Cpurt without conductiug any enquiiy, has allowed respondent No.4 to be there in fhe suit as iadigent person. Leam.ed counsel for the respondent veiy fairly submits that the euquiry was not conducted and tllerefore he has no objectiou if the inatter is renianded back to the Court below with fhe observation to give opportunit}' of hearing to the petitioner as per provlsions of Order 33 Rule 6 oftheCode ofCivU Procedure. This fact is also supported by coiiusel for fhe State/respondents No. 1 to 3. In view of fhe above, fhe petition is allowed aad the inatter is reinanded back to fhe Court below wifh the above observation. However, it is beiug niade clear that the parties wfll be present on fhe next date of hearing and wiil not seek iiGnecessaiy adjouroHient. A copy of this order be produced before the Court below on fhe next date ofhearfag aud fhe Court wfll in tura proceed very proinptly. __^—'—- Sd/- . :' ptitinker Dhvakar ^/^:T:':Judtee.—": jy