^,1; ^^•^nS.&^ ^- y d^"- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition(227)No. ^.Q)6 / 2009 Petitioner MwA^c^Jr-/^ 1^^€ Respondent/ A^^G-(^- ' Smt. Priyanka Pahuja, (Wrongly Mentioned as Sarita) Age 26 Yrs., w/o Vijay Kumar Pahuja, Nayapara Rajim Distt. Raipiir VERSUS Vijay Kumar Pahuja, Age 27 Yrs., S/o Ramesh Kumar Pahuja, Old Ganj-para Ward Distt. Mahasamund PETITION UNDER ART. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION .^L.—.-P-adicuLars-af+h<~, Cha±a^»^^~. >i i is'g:i4^r;i^W^^^^^^ ;~^!®^2^'i3iS&^^B?£;<?^;?S^'ii!Si^?SS'^:.ga;^^^;^^5%'^ -i-a'3W'; .g.'i .'''^i-h'^'J fil^ es "SrcT ^|iA|]^iq, 'gxTRTqS, |s«'1iyy. ;^^^"^ Z3o;^ GJ> ^' F( *im<- ^atfff SB: HON'BLE SHRI JU8TICE K.K. AGARWAL 15-^2009 2008 passed by the Principal ^ Shri Raja Shamia, Advoeat^ for the petitioner. Shri frstteek Shamia, Advocjate, forflie State. Heard. Instant petition is directed 4gainst the order dated 16-12- udge, Family Court, Camp Mahasamund, whereby the applica)tiOH ffled under Section 13(ii) of the Family Courts Act has l^en dismissed by the Fanuly Court. Shri Raja Shanna, leame^l counsel for the petitioner submits that the application has bjeen dismissed by the Fanily Court without assigiing any reasonj Per contra, Shri Prateeli) Sharma, leaned counsel appearing for fhe respondent, si^bmits that the provision of Seetion 13 ofthe Family Courts A4 are very elear and Aere is no ri^rt given to a party to appo|nt legal practitioner in the proceedings pending before the t^ial Court and it is only the discretion ofthe Court to pemiit aj party to be represented by a counsel on assigning good reason 4nd in the application filed by the petitioner, no sueh good ca^ae has been shovm by the petitioner. 1 ^i^iR ^^m ^"Ei^il TraRt5??f?—FS/95—11 / 200S—1,00,000. ^lTqRTq,'^ftWTg, fsRTRTy , f. C'2-^-7) N^'^50 •wqferanWTR! •3fest ^R?n ^•aiRmsii^ After hearing both the leamep eounsel for Ihe parties, I am ofthe view that no such illegality j>r infmuity has been pontfed out by Ifae leamed counsel for thej petitioner committed by the Court below leadingto manifest irtjustice to the petitioner. It is well setfled principl^ of ]aw fhat tius Court, in exercise of its supervisoiy jur4diction under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India, ^hould refi'aia itself from. interfermg vrifh the order pa^sed by the Court below except ia such cases wherc | pervcrsily, Ulegalily or jiuisdictioxial error is writ lax^ejon the facc ofthe recoid, which is not ia fhe present cas The petition beiag devoi4 of subslance te liable to be dismissed and is hereby dtei^ussed. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge