IN THE IION'BLE HIQH COURT OF CHH AT BILASPUR w.é.(%uo. 5???? /20 gaf PETITIONER DE‘FEw DA-W 0‘Z V / Aadim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bani Pather, throu— is Manager, gh t Aadim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bani Pather, Tahsii- Kharsi, District- Raigarh (C.G.) Manager, Centrai Co-operative Bank, Kharsia, District- Raarh (C.G.) 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. WRIT PETITION UNDER‘ARTI‘CLE 22 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ATIISGARH 08 a ig 7 OF THE We Sahaka‘ri‘wSamiti, Tahsii— Kharsia, District- Raigarh (c.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 Maghuram Rathia S/o. Devnath PLAiNTwFi: Rathia, aged about- 60 years, R/o. Village Chhote Jampali, Post Office— Barbhauna, Tahsil— Kharsia, District— Raigarh (C.G.) $EFENDANT No- 1. 2. Adhyaksha, Aadim Jati Sewa WWW m 200. wPCzw) M°53Zo/”Q’ mm (WK) WWW ammm WWW mm Wm $3imm SB: HON’BLE SHRI JIJ‘STICE N.E 30-6-2009 Shri A.K. Athale, Advocat Shri Anoop Majumdar, A‘ e, for the pctitioner. iv. appears on behalf of Shri Amit Shanna, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. Fceh‘ng aggrieved by the Civil Appeal No. 13/2008 b Raigarh whereby the applicatio preferred under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. by the appellant / pe 'tioner herein has beexi dismissed on merit before deciding the a peal, petitioner has preferred this netition. Petitioner’s Case in nut hell is that the petitioner herein hied an apphcau‘on under 6rd r 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and also application under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. before the 1st appellate Court. mendment was to the effect that the suit died by the responde t No. 1 was not maintainable in View of the provisions contain d in Section 64(1)(c) and Section 82 of the C.G. Cooperative ‘. AGARWAL order dated 2—8-2008 passed in 3rd Additional District Judge, ocieties Act. Although the said amendment was allowed b the appellate Court but the application for framing additi nal issue was dismissed; which deserves to be set aside. ajumdar submits that in fact, the application under Order 14 R e 5 of C.P.C. ought to have been Per contra, Shii Anoop mm mmmfaaiw ,ggéo/pg 00 amm gm) f $Wa11é¥1 decidsd by the appellate Cou appeal. Having heard learned perused the record, I am oft regarding dismissal of the C.P.C. deserves to be quash However, it is directed that filed before the appellate cou the time of iinal healing alon merits and the a§pellate c0111 in accordance with law. E t With the above observe tion, the petition is disposed of. Sd/q N.K. Agrawal Judge W dim WmW—P‘s/9s~1 1 / 2008—1 ,ou,000. x Wmewm rt at the time of final disposal of the counsel for the parties and having he considered opinion that the order .pph'cation under Order 14 Rule 5, 3d and the same is hereby quashed. he said application of the petitioner ‘t be heard by the appellate court at g with the appeal afiesh on its own t shall pass order on the application