HIOH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (2271 N0. 6080 OP 2011 APPLICANT PLAINTIPF RESPONDENTS DEFBNDANTS Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. ^J Ainar Sragh Parihar S/o Shiv Stn.gh Pariliar, aged about 65 years, R/o vUlage Pafhrra, Post Marka, PoMce Station Pipadya, TaiisU Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.). Sint. Shivkaati Bai widow of late Deep Singh Thakur, aged about 61 years Devidia S/o Jagatdhad Paadey, aged about 48 years. Ram Lal Paiidey S/o Jagatdhari Paadey, aged about 48 years AU S. No, 1 to 3 are the resident of vUlage Jagatakapa, post Bhatgaou, Pas Gaon Chandargadi, TahsU Pathariya, P.S. Mungeli Distt. BUaspur (C.G.). Rajniaai Siiigh @ Rajinaiii Stagh S/o Maaik Siagh, aged about 53 years occupation advocate, R/o CM Cooiplex Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Jara Siagh Thakur S/o Hemsmgh Thakur, aged about 57 years, Rainlochaa Singh Thakur S/o Hemsingh Thakur, aged about 55 years, Botli S. N0, 5 aiid 6 resident of viUage Usalapur, Pas gaon Pauni, Tahsil MungeU, Distt BUaspur (CG State of Chhattisgarh tiirough Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OP INDIA. (SB :Hon»bieMr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate with Shri Vipin Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vinod KumarTekam, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 7. Respondents No. 1 to 6 not noticed. ORDBR 5. 6. 1. (Passedon 13/10/2011) By fhis petition under Article 227 of tfae Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order y ^.// IN»«I"'IT"^! -2-— dated 9/8/2011 passed by Additional District Jiidge, MungeU, (C.G.) in Case No. 48A/2011. After sorae arguinents, leamed counsel for fhe petitioner subniits fhat on account of issue No. 12 relatiiig to acquisition ofthe title of defendants on fhe groiind of adverse possession present petitioner had filed appUcation under Order 18 Rule 3 ofthe C.P.C. before fhe fcdal Court but issues so framed is erroneous because respondents/defendaats have not filed auy counter claiin or cross suit. In fhese circunistaaces only issue relating to adverse possession or Uiaitation woidd be that whefher suit filed on behatf of the petitioner/plamtiff is tmie barred. In above said cii'cunistaiices he seeks to witlidraw this petition witli Uberty to file appropriate petition for recasting of issue for placiag burden of prove upon fhe parties. Conseqiientiy, petition is dismissed as wifhdrawn witli aforesaid Uberty. No order as to costs. T.P. Sharma Judge ^