HI6H COURT OF CHH/tTTISS/tRH AT BIUSPUR Writ Petition N0.^8^006 CORAM: Hon'ble Snn S.R.NayaR. Chief Justice & Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Petitipner Jai Prakash Jha, aged 56 years, son of Shri Babu Cwtta Jha, caste Brahmin, resident of 517, Brindavan colony, Jagdalpur, district Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Versus Regiondents (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) State of Chhatt-isgarh represented by Secretary, department of Pubtic Trust Endowment, ftaipur. The bistrict Collector, Jagdalpur, djstrict Bastar (C.6.) The Registrar (Public Trust) & Sub Diyisional Officer (tevenue/Ciyil), Jagdalpur (C.6.). Sudhonshu Shekhar, son of late 5h(-i Abhimanyu Rath, resident of 5hiv Mandir ward, Jogdatpur, district Bastar (C.G.) Ramon Lal Shrivastava, aged 45 years, adopted son of tate Shri Kishori Lal Shrivostwa. original son of late Shri Ram Lal Shrivastnva, resident of Shiv Mandir ward Jagdalpur. district Bastar (C.6.) The First Civil Judge Class 1, Jagdalpur, district Bastar (C.6.) (7) Ramdn Shukla, advocate, aged 56 years, resident of High School Road, Jagctelpur, district Bostar (C.6.) Hemtat Shriyastava, aged 53 years, son of Shrf ©orelal, resident of viflage Kalipur, P.0. Oharampura, •tehsil Jagdclpur, district Bastar (C.6.) Puran Lal, aged 45 years, son of Shri Krishna, resident of ESokrighatpara, Vijay ward, Jagdalpur, district Bostnr. (10) Ouryoelhan Lal, aged 44 years, son of 5hri ©orelal, resident of Kolcha, P.0. Madpal, tehsil Jagdatpur, district Bastar. (6) (8) (9) h -^- (11) Sheikh Wotiid Qureshi, aged 70 yeors, son of Shri 5heikh |6>rim, resident of Bhairamdeo ward, Jagdalpur, district Bastar. (12) Neelu, oged 47 years, son of Shri Jailal Bagh, resident of Atahadeoghat, Jogdalpur, dfstrict Bastoir (C.6.) 13. Rajendra Prasad, aged 47 years, son of Shri Om Lal 5hrivastwa, resident of Vijay ward, Jagdalpur, district Bastar. 5hri Somnatii Verma, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinay Harit, &y. Advocate Seneral for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20th March, 2006) The foltowing oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK, C.J. If we aiy so, this writ petition is totally misconceived. It is directed against a decree passed by a Civil Court. The complaint of the petitioner-trust is -that the 5 Respondent herein having filed a Civil Suit for dectaration and permanent injunction with regard to the property of the petitioner-trust was able to secure a fawurable ex-decree in his favour. It is contended that the decree passed by the Civil Court is nullity in the eye of law being one without Jurisdiction; it was also bad in the eye of taw as necessary and proper part-ies were not made to the suit. There is no need for us to pronounce upon the above contentions urged before us by the leamed counsel for -ttie petitioner. Suffice it to stoite that if the suit scheduled-property is property of the petitioner-trust as claimed by it and the petitioner-trust and its trustees are not parties to the suit, the petitioner could defend itself against any action that may be taken on -t+ie basis of the impugned civil decree. 2. Articte 226 power cannot be invoked to review the vatidit/ or correctness of a Civit Court decree and on that short ground, we dismiss the writ petition, however, leaving open all the contentions -3,- F"° -5 raised in this writ petition to be pressed into service by the petitioner in an appropriate tegal proceeding, if any ajch occasion arises. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judae v;- u