IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION No '3 '1 Z} OF 2003. ‘/ PETITION ER Mukesh Gawari S/o Raja Ram Gawari aged about 30 years R/o i \ Raman Mandir ward Fafadih Rooprela Gali, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETAILS OF THE PETITION I VJ‘ 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER :: As mentioned in the Cause Title above. J5&-.y"§{b ' QS OM? 2 Harish Kumar GawariS/ Raja Ram Gawari aged about 28 years R/o _$°‘;§$wll.l %v{\o(%,v e6? Raman Mandir ward Fafadih Rooprela Gali, Raipur (C.G.) e5 3&5: «wil’ &% $.‘F VERSES RESPONDENT 1. Roshan lal Gawari Slo Manoharlal Gawari aged about 45 years R/o Raman Mandir wrad Fafadih Rooprela Gali Raipur (C.G.) i 2. Sohanlal Gawari S/o Manmoarla Gawari aged about 45 years R/o RamanMandir wrad Fafadih Raipur (C.G.) Rooprela Gali / (7‘ f XI-HC-22 - 14-11-2003 Petitioners by Shn' Ritesh Abuja, Advocatc. ‘tion under Article 226/227 of the Constitun'on of India, th petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 30.7.2003 passed y the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal . 17-A/ 2002 by which learned Addl. District Judge allowed the applicau‘on of respondents for condonation of delay. The petitioners’ grievance is that learned Addl. District Judge allowed the applica on under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without valid reasons Wh reas the delay in dling the appeal was not explained by the mspo dents herein, in terms of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitati n Act. I have perused the impugned order in Which it has been mentioned that the applic tion under Section 5 of the Limitan'on Act was filed in which he has mentioned that on account of the family work he had gone o tside Raipur and therefore he could not present the appeal w time. After hearing the counsel for respondents and counsel or the petitioner herein that application was allowed by the learne Additional District Judge by a reasoned order. I do not hnd any gality or irregularity in the impugned le 227 of the Constitution of India this Court is entitled to in erfele in the order only when the subordinate Court has ex rcised its jurisdiction which does not order. Moreover, under o i e 'c XI-HC-ZZ " mm m jurisdichbn. None of the‘se conditions is present in this order. Moreover, if the petitioner has any grievance he may raise this ground in appeal before Whe Appellate Court after passing of the fmal judgment by the Lowq‘k Appellate Court. I do not end any folrce in this petiu'on which is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. l \ Sd/- L L.C.BHADoo E i if Judge [113%W