IN THE HlGff 2. /^ n^ ^/ J^ ^/^ AW ^ .2: AT BILASPtJfi /C.GJ W.P. <227t N0. J>^-^> /2009 Bhagawan Prasad Gaurha Aged about 82 Years, SankaT Prasad Gaurha Aged about 80 Years, Both S/o- La-tc Kedafttatii <^6UTfaa, Caste-Bramhin, R/o- Bramhmpara, Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa. (C.G.) PETITIONERS DEFENDANTS VERSUS Smt. NarayaniDevi, i Aged about 42 years, J W/o- Dinesh Kumar Dubey, D/o- Late Shobharam, Smt. Indraiii, Agedat>out40years, . D/p- Shobharam Chatyrvedi, ^----Botli are C'aste-jBramltin, R/o- Ward No. 4, .Biamlunpsra, Champa, Distt. Jarijgir-Cfaampa, (C.G.) .RESPONIMENTS PLABNT FS WRIT PKTITICW AKTtCLE 22TOF THE GQJ^tSTJTlERION OF JNDIA: ai^iwfyw 7T2H 5T?^?l9FTlN? WHCtl ShHlcb ?sf ^i<4]c]<<, ®Til-y-i|<B,fadi^y ^.C^^ ^- ^23^ "^200 t^). sn^RT *R^ ('yf^^) WcdW^felCT^; ^y uitider Shri Pankaj Shrivastaifa Heard. The iastaat petition is] 6-2009 passed by fhe Civil No. 119-A/2008 by which h+ Rule 1 aad 2 ofC.P.C. ffled for about 2 inonths aad argument on 7-8-2009, Leamed counsel for application for inji.uictioii ought to have been decided fixiag of case after troo m.ont3|is justice as well as the princip] Supreiue Court ia fhis rej I have heard leamed fhe record, Leamed trial Court oul on reply an.il argument ia a^jp. 2, C.P.C. os. 7-8-2009, Court ought to have heard Idirected agamst fbe order dated 18- ijjudge Class II, Champa in Civil Suit I'aring on appUcation uiider Order 39 the petitioners has been postponed [the inatter is fixed for reply aad whiclh <^i^id-lft''T 'RH^f ^f fs^l ^r^-^K ^SifW 311^1 , Adv. for the petitioners. the petitioners subiaits that fhe Order 39 Rule 1 aad 2, C.P.C. preferably withia one monfh aitd is contraiy to prulciples of natui'al .es laid down by the High Courts and j:ounsel for the parties and perused 118-6-2009 fixed the case for hearing .ijplicatioii under order 39 Rule 1 and is certaialy not correct. The trial application at ffae inost wifhin 15 tbe ^s^ ^.f^, l,i \^^>jwei^ saw%-HC—78 sn^r'qa r<ii* 7T8|i 3I!^TWN? t,^ .!7 ? ^^ "^'TRTq, "^TtWT?, FslCTwy "^fie^7)'^-^2-^^ o9 *tl*lfll «>*iicn ^n^T 1TiW ('i'ii-l'i'S?) TTOW^gan^ days fi-oin fhe sen/ice ofnolji herein. On due consideiatiod. aad it is hereby allowed. It| decide the application ffled 1 and 2, C.P.C. wifhin a pe4od of ftlis oider. The trial Coi) icgarding fhe date aad shal{ reply and fhe trial Court sh^ll wifh law aad shaU pass the It is inade clear fhat fhis oider, they m.ay prefer ^rafepfri wraf-E? fe^ •tfi^n ^sflOTsn^i ;e upon the defendaats/respondents the petition deseryed to be aUowed is directed that fhe trial Court sIiaU ly tfae petitioner under Orier 39 Rule of 15 days froia fhe date ofreceipt Tt shaU also inform fhe defeadants ;ive them a week's time to file their Lll hear ffae application in accordance ^rder. |if the respondents are aggrieved by ^propriate application. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge