%€dai^. i ^^"•1^ g '•^.^' ^. "y'.^ ^^..^^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227} No. 6709 of 2008 PETITIONER Jagdish Gupta, aged about 56 years, S/o Late Lakhan Lal Gupta, R/o Near Milan Mandir, Godpara, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Radha Krishna Gupta S/o Late Lakhan Lal Gupta, aged about 64 years. 2. Om Prakash Gupta S/o Late Lakhan Lal Gupta, aged about 56 years. 3. Shyamnarayan Gupta, S/o Late Lakhan Lal Gupta, aged 50 years. 4. Ramnarayan Gupta, S/o Late Lakhan Lal Gupta, aged about 48 years. R/o In front of Milan Mandir, Gondpara, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Smt. Ramkumari Gupta, W/o Ramjilal R/o Sonarpara Saranggarh, District Saranggarh (wrongly mention Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Smt. Rajkumari Gupta W/o Dhannu Lal R/o Gondpara, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7. Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Ramgopal Gupta. 8. Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/o Ramgopal Gupta 9. Ushakiran Gupta D/o Ramgopal Gupta. lO.Pushplata Gupta D/o Ramgopal Gupta. 11.Ashok Kumar Gupta S/o Ramgopal Gupta. Respondent No. 7 to 11 R/o Gondpara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Acinihotri. J. Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate for the petitioner. <s^T"^ "^ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 02nd day of December, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 09.07.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2007, whereby and whereunder the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") filed by the respondents/defendants was allowed and the interim order dated 6-10-2006 (Annexure P/6) passed by IV Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.02 of 2005, was vacated. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projectedby the petitioner are, that the petitioner filed a civil suit (Annexure P/2) for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the disputed Will dated 31-7-1996 be declared as null and void. The application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC for temporary injunction by the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court on 25-4-2005 (Annexure P/5). Being aggrieved, the petitioner/plaintiff filed appeal being Mispellaneous Civil Appeal No. 02/2005 before IV Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. The IV Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, while considering all the aspects of the matter, directed not to exclude the disputed Will dated 31- 7-1996 till furi:her orders. hlowever, it was clarified in the order that if there is delay caused by the plaintiff, liberty was reserved to the parties to make an application for vacating the stay. Pursuant to the observation made by the IV Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, the respondents/defendants filed an application under Section 151 pfthe CPC on 17-4-2008. Learned Judge, after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that unnecessary delay has been caused in disposal of the matter by the plaintiff, therefore, the order dated 6-10-2006 (Annexure P/6) was ordered to be vacated. ^s,^*^^ B^ ^ ^-^5$ ..^ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the order dated 6-10-2006 (Annexure P/6) was passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur, cannot vacate the interim order. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is mis- conceived as IV Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, has granted liberty in the order dated 6-10-2006 (Annexure P/6) to make an application for vacating the stay order, if the plaintiff causes unnecessary delay in disposal of the main case. There is no quarrel on the point that unnecessary delay was caused by the plaintiff in disposal of the petition. The interim order was passed on 6-10-2006 and till date despite several opportunities granted, the petitioner/plaintiff could not examine any witness. Thus, the order dated 9-7-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the court below is just, proper and unexceptionable, warranting no interference. This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Art:icle 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itselffrom interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. In view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge