titjSLE UBiCM, IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR W. P.Noc^ ^ 2- /2007 PETITIONERS ^.' .43^:2- y^'"" ^ ^^- J'-^y ^~ RESPONDENTS s9- VERSUS ^' Ramesh Kumar Chhabra, aged 44 years. Rajesh Kumar Chhabra, aged 42 years. Both S/o Prakash Chhabra, R/o New Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur Tahsil & District, Bilaspur. Baldeo Krishna Chhabra, aged 46 years. 2. Subhash Chandra Chhabra, aged 44 years. Both S/o Malikram Chhabra, R/o Gond Para, Bilaspur, Tashil & District, Bilaspur. 3. Charanjit Chhabra, aged 58 years, S/o Jagatram Chhabra, R/o Telipara, Tahsil 85 District Bilaspur. ^' ^^s^^.^r" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^x^-^^ ^' ^fS^' ^^•s^^.._..^^^r" Y ~@r^ XI-HC-78 ^l^dl ffi+licb 3:55T^TPTT^W, ^Tfl^4|(o, [^dW^< .t°.G(c;.M^^/p^^ 200 311^1 ^5|cb (^t^^) ^n^T^T^Jch cT8TT3TT^?T5b*4ich ^TTW^rfN'^n^T <=t)i<Mf<n41ri Hi^<^T^:teT^'<Ri<-<ii< ^3Tf^q'W^T 24.1.2007 Mr. P. Diwakar, Sr* Ad^ Advocate for the petitioners. Heard. The petitioners are aggri of Annexure P"l of learned District Judge tGking into consi) passed in Civil Revision No,19^ order dated 21.10.1997 passed ^ocate with Mr. Anup Mazumdar, zved by the order dated 19.2.1998 bistrict Judge, Bibspur. Learned Jeration the order dated 31.3.1997 1/95 and further considering the in Revision Petition No.1824/97, cn refusai of the petitioner Rames|i Kumar Chhabra to take possession of Jagat &at Miti, directed the ^etitioner Ramesh Kumar Chhabra to deposit Rs.3,000/- per nnonth| Watchmen at the rate of Ks»U Rs.1,000/" for payment of sa| for payment of saiary to two 50Q/" per month, to pay a sum of ary to the Mechanic for regular maintenance of the mill and furfher to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/m for payment towards eiectricitY bi of Rs,l,500/° per month each fo| Learned Sr. Counset for because the petitioner Ramesh the possession of bal mill as p^ Other directions were given to the Court Receiver for appointrr|ent of two Watchmen on the saiary safety of the miit. ^he petitioners submits that simply (umar Chhabra has refused to take directions of the High Court, ttie P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3TI^T^)T^i<t) cTSTT3T[^T$b^|cb ^l^' ^ET^TTqT^RT, ^Tft^4l<o, (sidl^y ^l+K-ll sh+ll<h ^ 200 ^l ^5|cb (^q^q<<^) ?^TTW^cT^T^T —t- responsibility of payment of <t)i^f<n41vi ^iH<nT^:te1c^'<Ri<-<;i< ^^rf^lT3TT^T • petitioner Ramesh Kumar aio^e cannot be saddled with the aforesaid payments. He further submits that in any case the |petitioner Ramesh Kumar has not committed any willfuj vioiation ^f the Court's order and therefore, no contempt proceeding can be itjiitiated against him. I have heard learned Sr. j^dvocate for the petitioners. I have perused Para9rapji 34 (e) <& (f) of the order dated 31«3.1997 passed in Civil Revisi^n No.1951/95 as a!so the impugned order and I am of 1+ie consid^red opinion that since the Court Receiver was directed to ha?|idover the possession of mil! to petitioner Ramesh Kumar Chha^ra Gnd since he refused to take possession and a review petiti^n was aiso rejected by the High Court with a direction to take Ramesh Kumar refuses to take for ensuring the safet/ of mill, under Articie 227 of the Constiltution of India. The petition being dev<| dismissed and it is hereby dismi^ necessary steps in case petitioner possession of the mi!I, there is no iilegatit/ or infirmity committec| by the court below in passing the impugned order, which has bee^i passed by learned District Judge calling interference by this Court id of substance is liabie to be ssed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge /^ P.T.O. ^ v<.-r°^^