/ 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASFUR : , CHHATTISGARH L y}; g WRIT PETITION c N0. 5/4305 12006 1 .7 a» ~"QiKomal S/o- Sitaram Singh Raghuvanshi, Raghuvanshi, Aged about 49 years, R/o— 5/1 34, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal, ' Madhya Pradesh Petitioner/Judgment Debtor VERSUS / National Insurance Company Ltd,, Through— Divisional Manager, Akasganga, Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, . Chhattisgarh. Resnondent/Decree Holder WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2£6I227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT lN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI ETC. I XI-HC—78 Hm,m, W (c3 W F 3P6 0 0% Wvm¢ooooo‘o... w.w 200 WWW WWW mmmw 08. 12.2006 Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. By way of this Writ Fetition $ed under Ariicle 226/ 227 of the Constitution of lndia, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 4/9/2006 passed by the VIII Addih'onal District Judge (FTC), Durg in Execu‘don Case No.371/2004, by which, his application hled under Orc'l WMEWW %;3T%nan%3T Wm (13W)- er 21 Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed by the Execun'ng Court. The brief facts, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that an ex-parte awaxd dated 30.06.2005 has been passed in MACC No.371/2004 and the petitioner has hled an the ex-parte awaxd under Older 9 pendency of the said application, the petitioner has moved the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC that the proceeding decision of the aforesaid ap} has been dismissed by the order, against which, the pre' In the opinion of thi: misconceived. When the application under Order 9 opportunity to make a praye itself and leaving that remei Order 21 Rule 26 CPC, Whichi was not at all justiiied. application for setting aside Rule 13 of CPC. During the s of the execution be stayed till the llication. It is this application, which Executing Court by the impugned sent Writ Petition is tiled. i Court, the petition tiled is totally petitioner, has already tiled an Rule 13 CPC, he is having an r for stay etc. before the said Court 1y, he moved an application under XI-HC-78 3aW, .,W , wr((>~:¢0r og WvmottoOyo¢otooOo 1H 2 mm (W) 00 mmm. WWW ’mmm “1* WW§WW amf'‘ratrm In the facts and circ stances of the case, no irregularity . has been committed by said Court warranting interference under Arlicle 226/ 2270f th Consh'tuu'on of India. The peh'h'on has no merit and the same ' dismissed. However, the petitio er shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in the proceedings of his application med under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC as the same is still pending, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- f Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O. 7/ %4\\