IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTE§GARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [227! NO. aggé OF 2010 SnatNhaa-alaléa‘shw A11 R/o Magarpara, Samta Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil 85 District Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspu- (co). > WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r PETITIONERS :— / 1. Smt. Hemlata Kashyap W/o Plaintiffs Gayaprasad Kashyap, aged about 40f years, R/o Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil 85 District Bilaspur (C.G.) /2. Smt. Prem Lata Verma w/o Ajay Kumar Verma, aged about 38 years; R/o Near Nariyal Kothi, Madhuban Road, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil 8a District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS \‘ RESPONDENTS :- (1. ‘ Smt. Nirmala Kashyap w/o late Defendants Yashpal Kashyap, aged about 35 I years, Sunni Kashyap s/ V Late Yashpal Kashyap, aged about $ years, MiaenL — Naturai gaardian ’Mother W %} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR sing‘e Bench: Hon‘h‘e Shti Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition {227) No.25EI2010. Smt. Hemiata Kashyap and another Petitioners l Versus Smt. Nirmaia Kashyap and ethers. Resgondents Shri Devesh Chandra Verma, counsei for the petitioners. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra‘ Panel Lawyer for the State. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution oi india o R A L o R D E R (19312010) Heard on question on admission. (2) By the impugned ovder in this writ petition tiied under Artiste 227 of the Constitution of indie, the teamed triai Court has rejected the piaintiiie’ appiication fiied under Order t4 Ruie 5 oi C.P.C. for framing additionai issues. Admittediy, the trial in the suit is over and the matter has been tixed by the triai Court for pronouncement of iudgment on 21 .01 201a The learned triai Court, white rejecting the application hae observed that the suit is not reiated to the power of attorney and that the piaintitfs have not sought any reiiet on the basis 0t poWer oi attorney dated 07.09.1990 and therefore, framing of additionai issues is not necessary. (3) in the opinion of this Court, the issue aiready framed by the tr‘rai t Court on 08.04.2008 and thereafter the additionai issues framed on 09.03.2009 are sufficient to decide the suit. in fact, issue No.1, is regarding the execution of the Witt and both the parties must have ted ' evidence to prove or disprove the witt dated 07.09.1990 executed by Buianti Bat in‘favour of Shanti Bat and Yashpat. {4) This Court does not find any such error of jurisdiction or ittegattty in the order passed by the learned triat Court warranting exercise of v) 1% iurisdiction . under Articte 227 by this Court. ‘ t ‘5‘? ”iv (5) The instant petiticn, therefore, fails and is herehy dismissed. However, the petitioners shat! be at tiberty to raise this ground in the appeal if any sueh eventuaiities arise. ew r - ‘ , ‘ Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge