t-HC-22 •^l sn^i'^1 [<;-<i?b 3I1^?T ^^ ^fg^ 's^ -i<i''<ici'1), '®rftaTre,facii'ay '^ 3TI^T •q?W 11*<WI shlich "^ 200 f^^ET' 3ii^i TCiRre'(to SIN6LE BENCH: HON'BLE '.P. Mrt.2 PETTTIONER Defendant No.l Sajendra aged abcjut Ward, t>hamtari (C.6.5. Vs RESPON&ENTS PLAINTEFF 1. Fulkun|war Bai widowof Late Budhkar 6ond, ajfcout 70 years, Resident of E)anitola l&hamtari Tahsil and District &hamturi &EFENOANT N0.2 Applicant in application U/o 20.03 2008 aged Ward (C.6.) | (SINC|E 2. Statel Collecl about Dhaml (C.(5.). Dhamlfari ^.. Heard. By this petition under Arti4te petitioner has impugned the passed by the 1st Civil Judge, whereby the learned triat co(irt °t]i*i[<i<i1i WRif 4 'fe'^ <Riitii< ^i'ariiira 3D^i JUSTtCE DHIRENbRA MISHRA 75 No. 1732/2008 Kumar Son of Shri Jagdish Ram 6ond, 32 years, Resident of Danjtola lamtari.Tahsil cmd District Dhamtari (SINC|E DEAD) of Chhatt-isgarh, Through the tor, Dhamtari, Tahsil ond District C)ham-t(ari (C.6.). • 3. LeekirtiiT! 5on of 5hri Shyamlal Mahar, aged 47 years, Ressident of Douiitola Ward Tahsil and District Dhamtari Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for| the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Soveij'nment Advocate for the State. orider Clafes 227 of the Constitution of India the dated 28.1.20C® (Annexure P-4) -2, Dhcmtari in Civil Suit No.45^/06 has allowed the application of -—^CEC IIIUII -HC-22 sn^i^i Ri-li.* 311^51 gTqhT^f^r T5? -!<l''<l<rf'll, 'S^fhTTS, faiwi^y 3n^?T ^f^f; *)1*1MI thxich """"""'"^ 20fl •l^a' •sn^i¥Riiw(ri?a w<ts respondent No.3 herein for plaintiff namety Fulkununr Bai in hisfavour. Learned counsel for the bosis of which the application produced along with the appficatio^ Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC, was mai) tribe, whereas, respondent No.3^ therefore, the pfaintiff could not| in view of Section 165 (c) of the considered. , I have heard leamed counse|l From perusat of the applic^i CPC by respondent No.3 and it^ petitioner, it is evident that •t^i specificalfy disputed by -the petiti^) above aspect has allowed the app| execution of Will by the plainti defendants hwe not disputed tl^ prima-facie evidence that respo^ plaintiff. The question whether subslftuting his name in place of deceased 6on|j on the basis of Will executed by her pe|l'itioner I^T<rfflqft'f •i-flt-Tcff^ ^'^1 ^<^)< ^•Sifigqsn^r submits that the Will on the made by respondent No.3 was not t. No enquiry, as contemplated under )e; the ptaintiff belongs to aboriginal is other than abpriginal tribe ond |tmnsfer her interest in the property 4<nid Reyenue Code, which was also not for the part'ies. ftion filed under Order 22 Rute 3 of reply (Annexure P-3) filed by the ie execution of Will has not been mer. The court below considering the ication wi-th the observation that the Ff is pr'ima-facie established, as the <e execution, and therefore, there is ident No.3 is the legal heir of the |the Will was legally executed or not ;^3i^ ifea,.,.^ ^I-HC-22 1 f~"~ %^ 311^1 ^T WM sn^r sft^il^ yf?a ^z 'S^ET -i<|.l|lcl'il, 'g'^FIS, (itcll^y sn^r xra"^ 111MI ^^^————————————-^^^ 200 •f^^T' cannot be decided at this stage, merits. Aftergoing through the im opinion +hat there is no illegal committ'ed by the court below in cxuse. manifest injustice to the exercise of jurisdiction under Art| In the result, the petition be dismissed and is accordingly h< it^tf. ct)i<ii<n4ii ^Hcir'^ fa^ <^'^.i< ^'ai^tfqsn^i las the same would be considered on itsugned order, I amof theconsidered j-ty, infirmfty or jurisdictionat error jiassing the impugned order which may t)etitioner wirronting interference in lcle 227 of the Constitution of India. I'las no substance, -the same deserves to treby dismissed at the admission stage Sd/- DhirendraMishra tr~=—"judge [•^^g^