^ia.Sr'-i E smi IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. /2011 fi.ye PETITIONER DEFENDANTNO.-2 •j) ^^^€^ ^^^s?- •^'-^Q-?':;^->1' >"'^-\>K>y .^^- •?!,^;l' esr ^yZ'6.--' "•^.^•••' RESPONDENTS PLAINT.IFF NO.-l PLAINTIFF NO.-2 ^ DEFENDANT N0. - 1 DEFENDANT N0.- 4 Pramod Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Jamuna Prasad Verma, Aged about- 60 years, R/o A/43, Infront of Aamrapali Society Garden, Aamrapali society,Pachpedi Naka,Raipur (C.G.) (Narae of petitioner is wrongly mentioned as Pramad in impugned order) VERSUS 1 Snit. Urmila Sahay W/o Shri K.K.Sahay Aged about - 58 years R/o Shanti Nagar, Raipur '2 Smt. Nirmala Verraa W/o Shri R.K.Verma Aged about-56 years R/o New Aadarsh Nagar(C.G.) Ouirg 3 StateofCG Through - Collector Raipur 4 Tehsildar Raipur District - Raipur(C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner above named raost respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1. ^ PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As stated in the cause title above. k-rfS ",?;.'" ^ 'i;, 'V9!yf^ ^!»a»!3^f/^. "c^~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition f227)No. 1177of2011 PETITIONER Pramod Kumar Verma VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Smt. Urmila Sahay & others WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF_&ffiSA fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Shri KK Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for tfae State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 03.03.2011) 1. Order dated 10.02.2011, passed by XVth Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 54-A/09 is under assai! in the instant petition. 2. The petitioner is defendant No. 2 before the trial court. He filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 ofCPC for impleading Jamuna Prasad Memorial Trust as a party in the suit on the ground tfaat the said trust is infact in possession of the suit property. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order holding : the suit hasalready been fixed for evidence and the defendant No. 2/petitioner herein has not filed any documents showing possession of Jamuna Prasad Memorial Trust over the suit property. 3. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and having perused Ifae order impugned, I do not find any substance in the petitiog. If plaintifFs suit is for declaration and pennanent niies aSpnr yewejSv "»"N -//PS •sisoo oi se japjo ojs[ -psssirosip /(qsjsq si pwe sq o} ssAjssap SIUBS sq^ 'iuaro ou s^q uoi^ad aqi 'SAoqBuisjaq psuopusm SUOSBSJ sqi joj •^ •CTpUIJO UOI^ttKlSUOQ sqi jo [^^ spiw -ispuii vnoo syqi jo sousjajjaiui gupirexrcM jauoiiipd sq^ Xq pspj uopBMfddB sqi Suissimsip ui Aiiiegani AUB pauiuimoo iou seq }jnoo {BU^ aqi 'l.ussajd ^y -pjBgaj siqi ui J&PJO sj.Budojdde si^ ssvd AimBpao ipqs iJnoo {GUI sqi usqi 'uoisssssod s^i m punoj iou KIAY 5iiare{d sq} pu®uoiiounto ^^^'"-s ./".A &--s£: -<r ..4'