BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT_Q^CHHATT!SGARH^T BILASPUR WRIT_PETmOI\Ue) Np_^b^/2Q1l -^^ PETITIONERS PL-^i ^V ^^c' x^i^ ^^s^' ^^....- RESPONDENT O^f^^'DE^TS ll^f^ss^^^ 2. Smt. Dhanush Kunwar, Wd/o Chatursingh, aged about 65 years, R/o Tilak agar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Smt. Pratibha, W/o Shri Atulsingh, aged about 40 years, R/o Tilak Nagar, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) — All Plaintiffs VERSUS Madhukar Rao Konher (since deceased) 1. Arun Kumar, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Madhukar Rao Konher, 2. Dilip, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Madhukar Rao Konher 3. Smt. Vaidi, aged about 56 years, D/o Late Madhukar Rao Konher, 4. Smt. Ranjana, aged about 46 years, D/o Late Madhukar Rao Konher, 5. Smt. Kanchan, aged about 44 years, D/o Late Madhukar Rao Konher, 6. Ballu, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Madhukar Rao Konher, 7. Smt. Deepa, aged about 41 years, D/o Late Madhukar Rao Konher, All are Resident of Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)-—All Defendents ^ ^ WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 QF_TH_E_CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. v ^ x ^ 3^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. W.P.(227>No. 962 of 2011 PETITIONERS Smt. Dhanush Kunwar and another. Versus RESPONDENTS Madhukar Rao Konher (Since deceased) and others. Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the petitioners. ORAL ORDER (18/02/2011) Following oral order Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. of the Court was passed by In a suit pending since 1989 the learned trial Court has rejected petitioners'/plaintiffs' application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for issuance of commission for local investigation to ascertain the position of subject construction of a septic latrine. The application was submitted by the petitioners when the matter was fixed forfinat arguments. (2) Plaintifls suit is for permanent injunctionand for demolition of the subject construction of latrine by the defendant. (3) In the written statement filed in the month of April, 1991 the defendant has stated in para 4 there ofthat the subject latrine was earlier in the shape of service latrine constructed in the year 1959, which was later on converted into septic latrine under the prevalent rules applied by the Municipal Corporation. (4) Leamed trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the application has been preferred after ctosure of evidence and when the matter is fixed for final argument, therefore the application is highly belated. (5) On perusal of the documente annexed with the writ petition, this Court is satisfied that leamed trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or any such illegality warranting interference under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India. '^^^^^f^^1^^^^^^, / »l;-{h5?..-:-. 'c\ .^3?a,, % 33 ^y"" (6) When the suit is pending since last 12 years and the written statement was flled in the year 1^1, the plaintifls should have been more vigilant and applied for issuance of commission at an appropriate stage. Allowing the application at this stage would re-open the trial, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference. (7) The instant writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ytas ^^ax •ttall^ud6<? ,-sAte'tet& K