">=-"~*»a'S5'WBSffliafl«.B^a8BCBII»»BI^^ III III "•'ItliB--:'-^'"^ ^^ '^:^^^-. NSILE B£NC':H G IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR W.P. ICXVH^NO. \2-S5 /2010 TC- PETITIONER/ ^_Smt. Kirti Bai, W/o. Shri Kanhaiya Lal, /o ^^?<V!E f^^-^'^Y^^y^'s^d about 58 years, R/o. Gondpara, ^^yy,v>.- \'2- ^e^" ^ ^' y^--> RESPONDENT, ^i-ioV-i Ql° Tehsil 8s District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS Kedar Nath, S/o. Laxmi Prasad Saraf, aged about 61 years, R/o. Gondpara, Tehsil 8s District Bilaspur (C.G.) o WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUnOILOF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY QTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER ,,lt»ffl-^ /1 •llft "°»w«KK: C?T '••)'^ HIGH CCWJRT WCW1ATTBGARH AT BUASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumwifflshra PETtTIQNER RES&QNDENT Writ Petition (227t No.1239 / a»10 Smt. Mrti Ban V@sys Kedar Nath Shri Saleem Kszi, ccunset forthe p^ioner. wprr pETrrioN WWERARTICLE 227 OF THE coNSTmjTKW OF ORALORDER (08.09.M10) The petitioner had preferred Civil Suit No. 99-A/92 whteh was withdrawm on 05-01-2007. At the time of allovwng ttie prayer for wthdrawat of suit the triat Court imposed a ooet of Rs.10,OOW- on Vhe petitioner/plaintiff. (2) This order of imposition of cost wa®chedlenged by the petiBoner in W.P.(227) No. 6662 of 2009. The writ petition csane up for hearing on 16-11-2009 and the ft>llowii^ orelw was pssswi by this Court :- "Shfi Sateem Kas, counsel for #>e pe^oraef. Leamed counwl appearfng for the peffttoner, on msffucfon, seete permyssHW of (ft»s Court to wttftcfraw ttwpeWon. Pemwsston granted, as prayecf for. AcmnSngly, ff»e pe^on fe cfemtssed as withdrawn." (3) Thus, the earlier writ pettion preferred againirt tiie impugned wder (Anrwxure P/1) was wnthdrawn simpliater wnUw.rt sedor®or reserving the liberty to fite anottier wrtt p^ition. Hii'JiF ...f^S"^"^ ^l&nr-'1 a.- (4) In the matter of Surg^a Traosport Semce vs. Stete rranspwt Appeffate Tribimsd, Gwafior reported in A(R'f987 SC W Hon'Me the Supreme Court white d ling with a shralar situation has held that when a wrtt petttton is wittKlrawn with<xrt ^eWi^ liberty to fite fresh petitton, the subsequent p^ition on the same cause of action is not maintainabte, (5) In view of the law taid-clown by the Hon'bte Supreme Court the instant petition is dismi^ed as nc* maintainatrte. pra'sban^^w judfee V-