^ har IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIC&TURE AT BILASPUR(C,G.) SECOND APPEAL N0. ^ {^ OF 2006 ^' APPELLANT PLAlNTIfF ^ ^' Bati Bai»daughter of RESPONDENTS Shri Ra^ncharan^aged about 45 years resident of Mohila Kandal Ward NOo22,Beladula,District- Raigarh(C<»G») VE R SU S : 1» project Director, Child Labour project samiti» Raigarh^(CoG^) 2, Collector >Raigarh, DistrictwRalgarh(C»G») 3, 4. > 7< Anil Kumar Yadav,son ©f Shri Co.LoYadav^resident of Railway Banglapara, Ralgarh» Distrlct-Baigarh (C»G<») Santosh Yadav»son of Shri s^nder Yadav, residenfc of Beladala,Raigarh»District- Raigarh (CoG^) Rubi Jahan,daughter of Mohainmed Absar Ali^resident ©iChandmari» Rai$arh,District-Raigarh (CoG.) Kmo Deepti daughter of shri J»R<Dewangan»resident©f Sethinagar» Raigarh»District- Raigarh(CoG<) Santoshi Bhuihar»wife of shri Mukund singh Bhaihar>resident of BeladulaiRaigarhtDistrict- Raigarh»(C,G») : 2 : h RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS <. 8o Janki Bal»Member,Mahila Mandal , 9» Rahas BQi,Member» Mahila Mandal 10, Durpatl Bai,Member»Mahila Mandal Respondent No<» 8 to 10 are residents of Beladula,Raigarh Tehsil & DistriGt-Raigarh,(C.Go) MEMORANDUM OF SECOND APPBAl. UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVII, PROCBDURB COBE. XI-HC-78 3TI^T^)T^i<=b cfSIT 3TT^T ^TW *11+1^1 Sb*1ict» 75^ '^l<<l<<1<4, tS>Tflyll6, (sKtl^y m^-^Art'-x'^/--^200^ 3TT^?T^RRl (^ciY^qc^T) ?;RTT^K ^Tf^ ^n^ST 12.12.2006 AppeJtant by Shri 5un?j S^ Heesrd on I.A.No. 4C»6| record. Alloi^ed and the documenl Heard on admbsion. Vfic appeiiant is a99ri^v^d 2006 passed by th& 1st Additi4r ^ppeat hto. 7-^ of 2(X)6 whereb^ of 2003 by the 4th CiviS Judge,| decree dated 02.07.2005 was In Civil Suit No. 34-A of| pleaded that under the Chtid ^chool in Beladula, Word No> 22|, the Project Dtrector vide dectaration ITOS sought that th^ ^chooi. Tli^ Isarned 4th CSvi! Civil Sujt on the ground that retating to mismanagement of pjdntiffs with the employees manner in ^htch the school wa^l educatjonal rehabjjitation of fru^trated. On these premlses, grant reiief to ths plaintiffs. meitio <=hHfd^r1 ^l^dT^:te^t'<Rl^l< ^3Tf^T3TI^T ;hu, Advocote. of 2006 for tckjng document on fe taken on record. by the jud9m&nt dated 20th July nat Dtetrict Judge, Ra'^arh in Civil ths dismjssa! of C?viJ Suit No.34-,4 ^Iass-IZ, Rai9arh vid<s ju^msnt and affirmed. 12003, the appejjants/plaintiffs had l|aboyr Project they were running a ^hich i^as ordered to be closed by No. 333 dated 20.12.2002. .4 pldntiffs were entitled to run the Ciass-II, Raigarh dismi^sed th^ |there ^ere number of complaints -^he ^chool and mtebehaviour by the ttherejn. It WQS also held that the being run, the very purpose of the Chjld Labour Project ^as being Ithe learned Lower Court refused to In Ciyi! Appea!, the 1 Additional Ji|d9& tfte ^ XI-HC-78 3^ '<<NI<'I<(, t?Tfl<ili<o, (^<nw^< +II+KII a»+iicti ^ 200 ^ ^ ^n^T^r^jch ^T3n^?T$h^i<=b ^ ^nn\0^ ^y ^ .^- .^ Sll^i ^5|cb B^cTreK^cTW^T ^^'~ <=bi<<Id<{l-i ^i^cnT^fe^l'<Ri^i< ^3T(^T3TI^T Dl^tn'ct Judge, Raigarh has afl tower. Court. After having gone throy^ as olso the first appelfate Cou| jrmed the findmg recorded by the h the judgment of the lower Court lt, I am of the considered opinfon that no substcsntioj question of l^ is invoived in thte Second .4pp€at Consequently, Second Apjped is dismissed at the of admtesion. No order as tod 03 tS * Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.