•<1 IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. 46/74- / 2005 Petitioner 'TaS Yersus y Rain Prasad •S/o Late Mohar Sai, Aged about 60 years, R/o F'urup House, Jhopdi Patti, S.E.C.L Korba, Thana Korba,Dist: Korba-(C.G.) Respondents ^BBrf^- y- 2. 3. 4. Dhanatnati W/o liam Prasad, Aged aboyt 39 years. Ku.HemIata D/o Ram FTasad, Aged about 15 years, Ku.Hempushpa D/o Ram Prasad, Aged about 13 years (Respondent no. 2 & 3 Through her natural guardian mofher Dhanaaaati), R/o Pump House, Jhopdi Patti, S.E.e.L. EoTba, Thana - Korba, Dist: Korba-(C.G.) The Dy.PeFsonnel Manager, 3.E.G.L. Manifcpur, Koi-ba, Dist :Korba-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Particulars ofthe Pctitioner As per cause title. 2. ParticularsoftheResDQndents As per cause title. *vm<!n^sfW <di:«i^i«io<|;yCTl'<l<ld,Rlril'My'< A^^.'rihi?/?^......... CT^?T'racp(^fggs) ^200 ail^iTTOR'ii* aaiTgiict?T**fi* ^' s'RifW^rfter ssf^sis 269.20)5 Shri Shravan Agarwal, coi Heard. The petitioner has pref< 227 pf Ihe Constitution of In. and correctness bf the ordi whereby the leamed Appellate filed by reqsondent Nos.l to learned Civil Judge, Ctass-IE, learned Civil Judge has rejecte to 3 herein filed under Order3 theCPC. Brief facts leading to fi| respondentNos. 1 to 3 ctaimin^ the petitioner hereWIFiled a injunction against tiie petition4 of S.E.C.L., Manikpur, Korbapn^ should not be given all the reti^ wifeand daughters pf the peti^ Perusal of the record s| <pi<<Ic><Ili*iiicsi"tfl«'<9•(Ri't^i'f ^srf^Tsn^i nsel for the petitioner. i|rred this writ petition under Article lia questionin'g the legality, propriety (r dated 15.7.2005 (Annexure P-8) ^ourtallowed the miscelkineous appeal |3 herein filed against the order of |(orba dated 16.10.2004 whereby the the flpplicationof reSpondents Nos.l 19 Rules l & 2 read with Section 151 of in9 of this writ petition are that the themsetves as wife cncl daughters of ivil suit for declaration & permanent r and also Deput/ Personnel Manager ^ing therein that the petitioner herein al benefits and that respohdeht No&l- to 3 hereinare entitled for thijeeshares out offive shares bein9 the oner herein. iows that when the petitioner herein neglected to maintain re^onde^it Nos.l to 3, they filed cm ap|Slication SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^ |!l^iliil]!,il \;}TOl-qiqitt<^t»T^l-tl<^(^ril'Hy< *fT*T«Ta*11^ sii^nwiR'ii* !Pn31I^IiiTOhB :L_ sn^^T^e (^ff^s) W^200 ?TBTiR^fi!T3n^?r •u- under Section 125 of the opplication learned AAa9istrat month to each of the appliccin' comptiance of that order Ks.; from the salary Qf the petitii Gourt was that if the petiti \r.P.C a9ainst the pefitioner. In thut granted maintenance of Rs.500/- per i.e. respondent Nos.l to 3 herein and in .,500/- per monlh were being deducted jner. Now the question before the trial <>ner herein is allowed to take all the retiral benefits then respond|ent Nos.l to 3 will not be able to 9et their mdintenance allowance atiet even their shqres and the petitioner has already withdrawn, as a^mitt'ed by the petitioner hlmself, an amount of Rs.1,74,000/- from strong primffl-facie case on th< to take all the retiral benefit able to get their maintenance No.4 not to gront all the re^ disposal ofthe suit. Looking to the facts of| by the petitioner to reqsonde withdrawnRs.1,74,000/- and <»|<iI«<Ili*ti*f<?>T*l"R'<l tRt'diit ^'si^Tail^il his Provident Fund account. Therefore, learned appeltate Court cons'K^ering the case of respondent Nos.l to 3 ground that if the petitioner is atlowed then respondent Nos.l to 3 witl not be allowance & diares directed respondent •iral benefits to the petitioner till the the case that maintenance is being paid it Nos.l to 3, the petitioner has already ^the petitioneris neglecting to main-haiin respQndent Nos.l to3,I amo[f the consideredopinion that by passing the impugned order the cytietlate Court- has hot cornmitted any iltegality or- infirmity. As su^h, the petitioner has not been abte to SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^ '1 ii'-iU ^••;'i.:'<»-ti^sfc^»'iJtii^y^si^^^"Si?^SA^^;^.^^ ?:FIW'^l?tlCWI,fl»''ETl<t<id,!fi«i'<-|l;[< W^rtli^^T^ •"••••"•"••"•••"•••••••••"•"•" ^H^ 3n^T(raw{4°l^'Ei) '%>-: sii^tiitRs'li* ?Bff3n^CT*Mi<h o&' ..~(^ mate out a case fbr interferei •the Constitutions of India, ~,S BftUOS ^C-f ' ^,^s,,i^ffar<^gfy, dismisssd. |ce by this Courl- under Artiele 227 of •ttiebetition is Iwble to be dismissed and it tlS i, ""•yibwever, the question .'•satw - ; the petitioner wi|l[be entitled mdfttenance atlowance of Rs.l Itie pension amount. Looking to ;the .urgenq directed to expedite the trial Consequently,M.(W.)P.^ <i>!<it?»<Ili*ii*i»V^'Rsl<8'(Rt'(^|'( ^3lf^I3)I^?T r^garding pension amount is concerned, l'o drgw pension subject to payment of l^OO/- to respondent No.l to 3 out of of •the matter, the trial Court is (nd decide the suit as early as possible. b.3746/05 also stand ctismissed. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo judge