@ ^ 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (ART.227) N0.^230F 2010 PETITIONERS DEFENDANTS 1. Baldev Krishna Chhabra Son of Late Shri Malik Ram Chhabra, aged about 57 years, 2. Subhash Chandra Chhabra Son of Late Shri Malik Ram Chhabra, aged about 53 years, Both are partners of Jagat Dal Mill,Telipara Bilaspur, Tahsil and Dist. Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT 3. Ramesh Kumar Chhabra Son of Shri Omprakash, aged about 55 years, resident of near Geeta Lodge, Telephone Exchange Road, Bilaspur (CG) Rajesh Kumar Chhabra Son of Shri Omprakash, aged about 48 years, resident of Puja Apartment, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur( CG) Charantjeet, son of Shri Jagatram, aged about 70 years, resident of Jagat Dal Mill, Telipara, Bilaspur Tahsil & District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T-- AF<< BM IB.;i K. I El^i;'; El B' i. jM HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 5233 OF 2010 PETITIONERS Baldev Krishna Chhabra & Another RESPONDENTS Versus Ramesh Kumar Chhabra & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate forthe respondent No.1. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 6th day of October, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents No.1 & 2 to comply with the order dated 31.3,1997 (Annexure P-2), passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Civil Revision No.1951 of 1995, order dated 19.2.1998 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Judge Bilaspur in Civii Suit N0.19-A/1995, order dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 92/2007 and the order dated 5.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Suprerne Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civii) No. 5586/2007. 3. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 31-3-1997 in Civil RevisionNo.1951/1995 (Subhashchandra Chhabra and another v. Rameshkumarand others) preferred against the order dated 9.11.1995 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit N0.19-A/1995, ordered as under: l{34.....The Court, therefore, passes the following order;-- (A) (i) The appSicants and the non-applicant No.3 are givon an option to given \^ i;i. \^ Rll M- 6i:'r m '} IN/;1 II IB' ^•..•1 1 iR' K M'} m ffil. an undertaking before the Disthct Judge, Bilaspur within a fortnight from today. (ii) They shall undertake to restore the Jagat Dal Mill in the running condition as it was from the date of auction heldin their favour on deposit of lease money of Rs.60,000/-. They shall also deposit the lease money from 11-7-1991 at the rate of Rs.60,000/' per annum till they handover the possession ofrunning Jagat Dal Mill. (B) They shall also further undertake that the Jagat Dal Mill shall be restored as per condition A (ii) aforesaid within three months from the date of undertaking. They shall also comply with condition A (iii) within a pehod of three months from the date of undertaking. (C) Shri Gulabani, Advocate, who has been appointed Receiver, shall continue as a Receiver so long as the case does not conclude in an arbitration award resulting in the decree pursuant to the award of the arbitrator. (D) In CQSQ, the applicants and the non-applicants No.3 accept the aforesaid conditions, it shall be the duty of the Receiver to inspect the Jagat Dal Mill every fortnight and report the progress of the work to District Judge at least over a month. For this purpose he shall be authorised to visit the Mill along with a mechanic oran engineer. (E) After the time stipulated and on fulfillment ofcondition A(ii) and A(iii) the District Judge shall deliver the possession ofJagat Dal Mill to the non-applicant No.1 through the Receiver for ayear on leaseof Rs. 70, OOO/-. (F) In case, the applicants and non-applicant No.3 refuse to give an undertaking or do not give an undertaking, the District Judge shall be freo to take such action against the person guilty of removing the machinery and plant of Jagat Dal Mill, as is available to him under the Criminal Law and a/so proceed against that person for commission of contempt of Court. (G) The District Judge shall give an opportunity to parties to lead evidence and once the Distt. Judge finds any one person guilty of removal of part of machmery and plants of Jagat Dal Mill he shall be dealt with by him in accordance with law irrespective of 1 Q-^ ^ ^ ^ OQ ^x ^ °1 ^ ^f (^ ^^ ^l ? 1 ^ 00 1 ^ ^< t -I ^- CD ^1 =T CD 0 w ooc-^ CT ^< CL CD CL Q) g CD N3 <Q Q) ^ "O ^ O- Q) CD ^ C: CQ ^ *^ ^ <6 o .03^ 2. ^ oi 2 ^t 1^^3 ^ <^ 5- ^ pl ^-h II !i O ^t- '^ <D 10) IQ) I'CD ^ iic?si III o <5 S ^l o, 0- <o S' iil r0 ^ -^. 3-^ CD Co' 11^' 1'^ ^ ^' o ^ ^ |l|i1 i Q-o. O- ?D ST ^ ^ O 5- Q) IPI-i o ^ ^. "p co ^~.~.. §.a ^ liil: S' 3 '" ^ q> O.Q,-§.C^ ^ ^ ^ o '? 0> o il ? s^-^s- co o Ss IC^) <D l^"li ICO ^h II. §' g% II ,11 5- o '^1 :§:a- CD Is c? i II lls ?t§3 ^s s)^^ li§ 1^1 2 m ^- 0 .^ s ^ v<.& Q, ^c§~ CQ CD C^ co ^ ?• °'s ffi ® CQ CD Q) O. 5' 5 ^l. Q) <S 3'II 0i ^r Q) ^r CD s' 1 ^, ^ % g OJ co 00 00 <^ 6^ 11^^, sii^'^,]'' 11&. '^^ ®i;^t.l II, iH'^r ^•- Ki:' il. M l:t; !'..•• m- M: II 6. 7. ^t f^f^T ^t CjTT^ 0<^iyil^ ^ //^w ^v /^TT" uy/^// /y ^ Being aggrieved, a revision was filed being civil revision No. 600/1998. The revision was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn on 21-12-2005 (Annexure P/4) reserving liberty to the respondents No.1 & 2 to file appropriate proceedings avaitable under the taw. Thereafter, the respondents No.1 & 2 filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being W.P. (C) No.92 of 2007. This Court by order dated 24-01-2007 (Annexure P/5) dismissed the said petition. Thereagainst, the petition for special leaye to appeal was filed by the respondents No.1 & 2 before the Supreme Court being SLP (C) No.5586/2007, which was also dismissed on 05-01-2009 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter, having considered all the aspects of the matter, the District Judge passed the impugned order dated 25-08-2010 (Annexure P/1) directing the petitioners and the respondents to supply names of the arbitrators for appointment of arbitration tribunal. Thus, this petition. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the appointment of arbitrator is subject to compliance of the first part of the order passed by the District Judgeon 19-02-1998. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. There is no confusion on both parts of the order dated 19-02-1998. The same are independent and contention of tearned counset for the petitioner that the appointment of the arbitrator is subject to compliance of the first part of the order is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. \^ \ z& 8. Be that as it may, it is for the District Judge to see that the order passed by him on 19-2-1998 in civil suit No.19-A/1995, which has traveled up to the Supreme Court and has been confirmed in SLP (C) No. 5586 of 2007, is complied with. The appointment of arbitrator was not subject to compliance of earlier partof the order. Thus, the impugned order dated 25-8-2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, in civil suit No.20-A/2007 directing the parties to name arbitrators for arbitration proceedings is just & proper and does not warrant any interference ofthis Court. 9. It is well-nigh established that the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on theface of the record, which are not available in the present case. 10. In the result, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. i—— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri