y •-^! ^ S^f- IN THE HIGH 'ee^B'E ©T SBHaFTrSGASB .ftT BI&ASPOR ".P'.l:iN®.3-^3i6'//'2!e®3 »\ -I1 PETITICB3ER '^ ::^.^y ^y^ •^^' <€>' ^' / S/8. Baijnath Bateey. agel ajaeut 35 years, Oeeapatien AgricHltarist and Basiness, Resiaent. ef Villagc Teaaci. P.S. Patna» Tatasil BaiicQnth- par Bistriet Koria e.6. ( Power ef attemey £®rIsiBwar Sharan Babay. S/o. Bai^nath Dabey aged aboyt 38 years, Resident of Village as abpve. .) V E R S CT S KESPONBENTS 1) 2) 3) Mohan Age-^awal, s©n ©£ Hahavir Ageawal, eontraetor S.E.G.L. ; Resident of Jainagar, Ees-t and P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja e.G. i:Bai®S': Soa of' Gopal Siagh, aged aboyt 35 years, ©eeapation Gontracto] (Hunshi.) Resident. o£ Ka-bkona (Bajarpara) P.S. Patna, Tahsil Bailcanthpur, Bistriet Koria e.G. Salik Ram, Son Qf RanieharitFa, aged abeut 32 years;, ©ceupation eontrac'fcor-shiL^, Kesident o£ Village^ Soranga, Pest;and P,.S. ^Pat.na, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Bistriet Koria C.G. WRIT PEEI'riQN UNBER ARtieLE ©FINiSilX ^227/;OP _THE .eONSTITUTiQN 1) Pafcticulars of the Betitiener. AS aentiobed.above in the eaase title. '^:.€8 'i Ss$i 78 SS^V ^il R;-ti+ ^«TT3:n^T »i*iieh ?sf •<II<IICT<<, ynly'Ko, [qdiyy . f^.p.Mo- 2-^ S 6 |o3 *111CTI g,»iiq,—••••'•••••••—— -•^200 an^T^ra^ ('^°rf3^t) TOnw;Hfe[sii^i SB: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kunkar Mishra, J applicjati 30.09.2010 Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel Shri Malay Shrivastava, The trial eourt passed a j| No.5-B/2002 on 9/08/2002. The under section 96 of'CPC in the Baikunlfapur, District Koria. The was accompanied vrith an filing the appeal. The first ajj application under section 5 of th| the first appeal has also been disn^ In the opinion of this appellate court would amount to| section 100 ofCPC in this court. In view ofthe above, permission of the court to file a duly constituted second app^ Permission allowed, writ -with the liberty aforesaid. cftTiLlkt<ili *-fw<nT'^ f^l<1 <P>it^i< ^73ifiltT3II^[ |for the petitioner. coi^nsel for the respondents. j|jdgment and decree in Civil Suit ^etitioner preferred the first appeal t»urtofAdditional District Judge, ^ppeal was barred by 9 days and it applicjation for condonation of delay in a^pellate court has dismissed the Limitation Act and consequently disn^issed by the impugned order. cotirt, the order passed by the first a decree and is appealable under lean}ed counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrjaw fhe writ petition with liberty to )^al under section 100 ofCPC. (^etition is dismissed as withdrawn 1i: . ?r ; 3ii^[ w !<•<!<* ^t 31I^T sti*^i4> o^n ^mvff %*(i^» 's^s -^ww^.w^ww, IsRiray . U>'jt>. ^ 2-c?36| o3 311^1^^K (yii^l^T) ?<giw ^ifta aii^i Leamed counsel for the certified copy ofthe impugned o It is directed that on the fhe impugned order, the certifi' retumed to him. petitioner prays for retum of the 1'der. ^ietitioner s supplying xerox copy of i^d copy of the impugned order be •<>i^(<'i41'j fWvS ^^Ss <Fsi«ti< ^? 3JIOT 311^1 :.'l::':Sd//-:;;';'.•:," Prashant Kumar Mishra <!ltl<lfl ^*r il!;«l]i!>t[,.?R^i?rR —FS/r47—2/2010 —1,00,000. ^ .i.^^ ; ^.,f ^ ,.^.ii- -•^^<i^ f/^..(;^.^,:-iK,^ ^^vc^f^'^-^—^^±-!' -••.^-^ ^ ^-, .^..?,J j;. ,^u,a^..?:..