!e f't '^..•••". A%\''\~ ^ • ' ^y;f5^\ ^y' ... A."'" M^aiDBiTS BEFOBB TBE HGN' BLE HIGH CQUBT QF CHHATTISGABH AT BILASPUB l<aiT,PETITiai NQ, &<?W OF 2QQ4.. PETITIOiEB 8- Ishwar Dayal Ph:i.lainsler(wrongly written as Parlender) , son of Patras, a§ed about 39 years, Caste Christian, resiiiient of Aja^ara, Thakhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ^/i £sy ^ :-1. Manoj Linkan, aged 40 years, 2. Marshal Linkan, aged 38 years, Both son of I. Linkan, Caste Ura~io,Christian, both resident of Ajadnagar, Takhatpur, Distr- ict Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 4, Seven'bh Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). PETITia\1 U-NOER ARTICLE 227 OF Ca^STiriJTia^ QF_BiD£A ^^h 'S^^-:SSS^S^'"'^1 XI-HG—78 311^1'W%ji*?i wnsai^raiNy I:: ; i ! ;j.-l.fi-lui-**l ^^':!)i;tiK'i<i,^fl1*iic,;Ri<iiiwi< || ': A^3..V>. ^AS . ^S^ 5 y'2_(TO *11Niell flSNI^i K v^f trasR' (1pf3»i^) ^!kWSK;;aSg^i^T S-ZiQO'* .^ SfaTK,Ht:B. Agarwal, coun :;'.,^Ieaniy:':. :; ! We.yj^Si&xhei has prefe 227^ftUe®3itstitutionof Indi wiolin'iii 'ttWri? ^ fe^ft ^ sjftiisn^r 3el for fhe petitioaer. jrred this writ petitioh uiider Article ^a being aggrieved by the order dated 16.,7^2Q04;':||)assed/bytheSeyejnthCivilJudge Class-II, Bilaspur ia .eivit;'SMl(K%c>. ,'308-A/2002' fl ResTiOiaBEeB/tsMe^U and 2 (lien 3 Qt'Qae^'GfSSs'ciEGsnl Proceduii ^, "BiK^lta-ief'iacts leadins one;.pu3±QilalSlia£lfileda suit sate''deedJ|ail;e^r!B7.11.199I ^PuiiSilaI Sfli%S^;|S.^fore 'tlie ^appIieafi0a8|M-i;1aiuiguig thein ;^Ile.stTeD;g' iof:ajWilT allege^ ''bv txSe'.S&ti^^yunnQal. Saijf] petitioiier 'ttyf; fituig a ^yritten iorged andoSas^not been exel Respoiiden.ts|[I'lQ.^ .I aad 2 ar^ and tlaat •tltei;said 'W31' is ad (hereby tUe application fifed t>y the [infhis petitidn) uitderOrder 22 Rule was allowed. i |o fiting of fhis| writ petitkin are tliat Ifor deelaration aad correctioii of the ^iiring ftie pendency pf fhe suit said •spondents No, 1 and 2 raoved an ts legal heirs of Puiuulal on .record on Ito have been executed in. fheir favour application was objected by fhe reply stafing that'ftte said 'WilI' is uted bv Late Shri Puniulal aad fhe not legal heirs of Late Shri PuBiiilal Telatiag to the propert)r ia dispute. LeaFaecii<3reti{;Judge after heaijmg fhe counselfor fhe parties passed tbe iiirpugned order. Leamefl cciunsel for ftie|petitioner subinits fh.at thepetitioner raised ^Qbjecfion regarding ^luineness of the 'Wfll' aad opposed that ttfe.Eesponclenfs No. 1'^ud 2 are not legal heirs of Late SUri S¥ 1-S. :i:il:i ::lll? Si :;;^ ia\ ^ r •»rittiitw^ihH)^r'Aia<t XI-HC—78 an^l^l^ite ^qtan^ispriw :;s"lsaa aaa wwii a»Nit»> ^-er^ffqT^PT, •^gfeH®,Fqciiyy L?"p l^s^5^:.f.:?:^afL-. 311^1 •q'HT ( ^c|i^<4<[) t^nwafra 3ii^i "^.200 ^inferiS^ wraf 'if 1s%t <F«i<s;i<. ^stfinaiit?! ilal ia that situation | leamed trial Court oueht to have .- . . ~ ' conducted'a suininary eaqilil)}' as envisaged under Order 22 Rule 5 of fhe G.P.C. but without c^nducting auy enqiury it has directly allowed the application. Having heard learaed :ounsel for the petitioner aad having i regard tQ'fhe faets and circudistaaces offhe case it is observed fhat the peti.tion.er ina3r raise such| objections in written statelnent as no enquin' was conducted by ti^e trial Court teefore passing the order on the appUcation ffled by fhe|Respondents No. 1 aad 2 under Order 22 RuleSofthe C.P.C. | Wifhithe above observat^on fhis petition is disposed offinaUy. Conseqiienfly M(W)P N^. 2307/2004 andI.A.No. 5803/2004 staild disposed of. "sar L.C. Bhadoo Judge