^s^se^s.ass L a- \G BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PFTITION ^227) No. Q^X/2009 PETITIONERS Plairitiffs v^., \ft.W/ ^ / /.^^ ./,/})y A" ./' 3^ ..-<- ^^•/ <^ ^ ^. Smt. Sarla Maheshwari Wd/o Late Nandkishore Maheshwari Age 42 years 2. Ku.Sneha Maheshwari D/o Late ^) Nandkishore Maheshwari Age 16 years (Minor) Through her Mother ./ Smt. Sarla Maheshwari W/o Late Nandkishore Maheshwari Age 42 years Both R/o 45, Vikas Nagar, Lakholi, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT ^1. Defendants 2. ^. State Bank of India Y. the Chief Manager,^ K^mlrtu- Main Branch, Kamn^ Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Smt. Godawari Bai, Wd/o Satyanarayan Parwal, aged about 75 years Manoj Maheshwari, D/o Shri Satyanarayan Parwal, aged about not known Sanjay Maheshwari, S/o Shri Satyanarayan Parwal, Respondent No. 2 to5 are R/o Ganj Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Prateek Maheshwari, S/o Nandkishore Maheshwari, aged about 19 years, R/o Ganj Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC—78 3??i^r ^T I^TN)' 7T^T '311^1 srs^i<?> ^ ^^sa^ ^llH^ll ^h*ll<»» ~7^r^i^j<vi^ ^-al^^^ [^<nj^^< ...L.3...P..-..J o. 3°3^/03 ••"^200 3n^?r T^' (^?^^) ^^ai^R ^Tf^T 3??^T SB: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N.I^ dnd 29-6-2009 Shri Anoop Majuindar, Shri Suinesh Bajaj, Govt.| Heard on adinission. Brief facts of fhe case appUcation for discovery of d4 original fixed deposit receipts of fixed deposit receipts, whi4 possession of the bank. After heanag the partiesj 22-6-2004, disinissed the ap^ ground that such applications Court twice eveu before filmg d^ directed the petitiouer not to sumiiiiounig the person along| was never challenged by the p^1 has inoved on. appMcation uj summonio.g record of the Baakj Leamed tdal Court considei|iii considermg fhe fact that th| submitted by the respondents A<P.vocate, for the petitioner. Adv. for fhe State. |are fhat fhe plaintiff nioved aa tcusnent regardio.g bank account, proceedings regardiag renewal |;h are, as per the petitioner, ia <^5^{<n^1i W^ff ^ fe^ <r^^i< ^3t?W3^T L.AGARWAL 1 the trial Court vide order dated ^Ucation of the plajntiff ou the [have been disraissed by the tdal jf the prcsent applicatioii and also 4iove any appMcation io. future for Iwith said documents. This order ^titioner. Now agaia the petitioner bder Section 151 of C.P.C. for |through soine officer ofthe Bank, ii|iiig fhe .earMer order. aad also t; photo • copy of the docuxnent |)aak ia the sziit, caii very well be .•r^-S^^^'^^ N ^f •^ ^^'7- XI-HC—78 SH^T'^Tf^TW <T^T ^^ ^RN" ^'y ^IWCiI (h*11<^ ^sr ^NKn^, y>Ti1'y<!®,t^rray \^^ C^7j^° ^ oiz3r -^200 ^?r TR^ (^3^?) ^RT?W??fN'3?n^T proved by the petitioner ia act dismissed the application ofi^e Haviag heard learaed cc|i perused fhe record, I am ol illegality or infumity has bet leadmg to manifest mj'ustice t<^ It is well settled prmcipl^ of its supervisoiy Constitution of India, should tlie order passed by the Court| perversity, iUegality orjurisdicl of fhe record, which is not in ttl< The petition beiag dismissed aad is hereby dismi^ jurisdictjion ^FI^td^l'l ^l^df ^f "fe^t <r^^k iEr^tRm^n^T 'ordaace with the provision of law, petitioner. misel for the petitioner aud haviag fhe considered opinion that no m committed by the trial Court the petitioner. oflaw that this Court, in exercise under Ardcle 227 of the jrefram itself from iaterfermg with jbelow except ia such cases where ^onal error is writ large on the face present case. substance, deserves to be sfeed. _-——— Sd/- N.K-Agarwal Judge wifliout