'13 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE 8HRI SATIJSH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. M.C.C.No. 114 of2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Narendra Kumar Parekh, aged 40 years, S/o Shri panehilal Parekh, R^o 228, Parekh Mansion, Gudiyari Raipur (e.G.) , ; : - VERSUS 1. Umashankar Lal Shrivastava, aged82ysara,S/QNathuLal Shrivastava. 2. Smt. 'Padma Devi Sfan.vastavia, Aged 75^ xears. Shn IJmashanfear Lal Sfarivastava. ; 3. Suresh Kumar ShriYa.sta'va, . ;aged. ,53, years. •:S«3.:'':Shri UmashankaT Lal Shrwastava 4. Naresh Kuinar Shrtyastava, •',Aged.51:.yBars.'.'S^O-Shn Umastiankar Lal Shrivastava 5. Ramesh Kumai- Shri^astaya, •~ 'aged 49 years:...JSi^:Sfari UmashankarUlShrivastava l^: 6. Kumari Bharti Shrivastava,] ^.- aged 46 years. D/0 Slu-tl Umashankar Lal.Shriyastava! ''!. Dinesh Kumar Shriyastava,j aged 43; . years. S/0 Slmj Uinashaiikar Lal Shnvas&va i 8. Mahesh Kumar Slmyasta'va,! ^..aged. -:41 ^years.,I..S/QKShTir Umashankar Lal Shrivastava 1 II _aaRasu& '( •^' ?€ r ' AH S/a Maln^^^^ R^ Pandri, Tehsfl and District Raipur(C.G.) 9. State of Ciiiiattisgarii Through: The Collector, Raipur^ » ::'^? Present: Shri Y.C.Sharma, Advocate for Ifae petitioner. Shri B.P.Shanna, Advocate for thfi respondeiits. Shri Sushil Dubey, Go'vemment Advocate, for the StaWre$poadentN6.9. i :. . ^ . ORDER i (Passed on3IdofApril, 2007) ) ^ITiisis an a^iication^^ fflbdification ofthe^^^^ 14.02.20G17 ptssed in W.P. No. 412/2003. This OKler was passed in open Court wherein the leamed cbuasel appearingfor the petitiouerhad opportimityto<K>rreGttiie mista]^sifany.Theleamedcpunseldidiiot<lotheneedfiil at tiie time of hearirig aswell as atdie time ofpassing of -..-;.3-@- theorder.', , •' .• 1 - ' - ' ' .' ^ 'The present petition is filed stating^ that tiie submissions^ •^;'.:..' ' , .' '.••..• ••'•.• .'... • ..•-•; •••'.,. "••• . . made by the respondents liave iiot fou&d place in the order. It is to myirttei1 surprise that tlie leamed counsel; despite beingpresentffltheGouttwhentheQrderwaspassed,^^^ not state aii^ing m ea^^ petitioriCT wafll^^ ^wrffidrawthis petitioa. > % ^^^^^^SgSiSSS.^ 3i!r Wl IQ; ss, 3; Now,thelearaedeounselchallengeshisstandandhasfiled this application regarding submission of resp6ndents. I am of the view that there is no necessity of recording the submission of the respondent as the leamed counsel appearing for the respondent is present in the Court'and has rio grievance against non-recordmg ofhis submission. 4. This M.G.C. tanlamounts to reyiew of the order witholrt any basis. This petitioa is accordinglv dismiSsed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^y s--^-^. . • -^