" \ 1 ^, IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. .^^ OF, 2009 ^s'l^ PETITIONER ^/^ ^Sf^ ...t^ 'y RESPONDENTS ^^/ ^^ tx^""' Manoranjan Prasad Pandey S/o Mokar Prasad Pandey, aged about 45 years, resident of Baikunthpur, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh C.G. (Defendant no. 1) VERSUS "7'^Smt. Jamuna Bai D/o Late Abhayram Pandey, W/ o Rameshchand Pandey, aged about 85 -years, R/o Baikunthpur Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh C.G. (Plaintiff) 2-. Smt. Nanhe Bai @ Shakuntala Bai D/o Abhayram Pandey, W/o Kanhaiya Lal Pandey, aged about 80 years, Occupation - House work, R/o Sonarpara Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh C.G. (Defendant No.2 ) 3, State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector Raigarh C.G. (Defendant no. 3) ^^'" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . XI-HC—78 ^\ 3?1^1 ^T fe^'ich ^Sjf 3?T^T ^q WH^Il 'SbNi^s T^T T^ii^i<n^ ^Til<H4i<o, [®icni^^< te^..-..^.^ WQ- ^i^r ^^ (^i^^) I'CTW^^^iiir SB: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N.K 07-11-2009 Shri Rakesh Pandey, coun^el Shri AmitSharma, counsell Ku. Sangeeta Mishra, No. 3. Heard. The instant petition is djrec|ted 09-2009 (Annexure P/1) (wron^ whereby and whereuncter the ap|plication under Sectton 65 of the Evidenc the ground of want of affidavit jn Shri Rakesh Pandey, cou^sel that the learned trial Court opportunity to the petitioner to appjjcation under Section 65 of tlle have rejected the application strajght 1 have gone through the application is as vague as it cou supportof applteation and therefi •^Tqfe-t^ ^FT^f ^ ft^t <[^^« iT^tfmsn^i AGARWAL for the petitioner. for respondent No. 1 & 2. .L. for the State/respondent against the order dated 02- |ly mentioned at 02-09-2008) filed by the petttioner te Act has been dismissed on (s support. for the petftloner submtts ought to have granted an |file an affidavit in support of Evidence Act and should not way. tppljcation (Annexure P/5) the Itf be also no affidavit is fited jn Ire no fault coutd be found with + ^^2^S'^ /y^'\ ^^^••f^rR? '^m^i^i^^te' ^ <WWS¥WII^ ^^r ';^TraT^ra, ^n1^^^ t^Tray ^.^r-2.^.:..S^^ ~^1t?i ^^.( I^TW llft^ ^it^i —A' the order. Further as per the aferments in the application that the will is registered wJMWhich c|n always be proved bycalling the record of Sub Regtetrar, G|iarghoda. In view of ttiis rw prejudice is going to cause to tyie petitloner in dismissing the said applteation leading to '^R^!^> °RTS^^ fe^t "(N^R ^^^^l^T manifest ir^ustice warranting interfere in exercise of extraor^inary jurisdtetion under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. I It is well settled principle o\ of its supervisory jurisdiction| law that this Court, jn exerdse under Arttole 227 of the Constitution of India, should ref|'ain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courtjbelow, except in such cases where perversity, iltegality, irreg|ularity or juri®lict{Qnaterror js writ large on the face of the rec<j»rd, whteh is not in the present case. Therefore, the present pet|tion deserves to be and is hereb|y petitioner is at liberty to prove th^ of Sub Registrar, Gharghoda, if !sio being devoid of substance dismissed. However, the ^ said wjll by calltng the record advtsed. _ Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^TC?^[^R^m^[<J5Rh?ri^—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. T^^