SINGLE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH ^ W.P. N0. -^O.^ OF 2005 Petitioner Defendant Gendram S/o Manrakhan Verma, aged about 49 years, Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Village - Jhal, Tahsil & P.S. - Benetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus Respondents Plaintiffs w^Smt. Sirmotin Bai (since deceased) through - ,^> / /,...-<€ &€/ ^..<^'y ./' ^/ ^ 2. Shatruhan S/o Sonu Kurmi, aged about 33 years, Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Village Kusmi, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Bharat, S/o Sonu Kurmi, aged about 35 years, Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Village - Kusmi, Tahsil - Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -5. XI-HC-78 TFIWT^^W \5Wt ^IWW^, W\\W^(»,Rlc^N4^ if^ ....U().^..A.o.c£3..[.^^200 3TT^?T<CTR^i4? ^CTTW^^T^mcp' 3I1^$T^s (lJCfi^<£j) ?';F?ITm;?TJ^;f3TTi9T 5-9-SOOS Shri Sanjoy S. AgrawGil, The petitioner hqs pref 227 of the Constitution of I^ and correcttiess of the orde^ Addi'tional District Jud9e, District Judge has allowed the] under Order 22 Rule 3 read wil th^m on r^cord os i^ot h^ir piaintiff before the Court belov) I hay@ heard learned impugned order. Respondent 5mt. Sirmol for decloration of thc sale compensation against the petil that civil suit, Smt. Sirmotin B4 an appticatiors undsr Order 2^ C.P.C. for bringing them on Sirmotin Bai executed a will in he has become iegal heir of No.2 herein is the sharehoidef th©refQre/heha6 in+erest in CPI<<JO<IITI ^S+1CoV1^fcl<l ^R^^I^ ^srf^ran^T cjounsel for the petitioner. F^rred this writ petition under Article ^dia qu^^tionin9 th& iegaiity, propri^ty dated 11-7-2005 passed by iearned B^metara, whereby learned Additional japplication filed by respondent-s herein i|h Section 151 of the C.P.C. for brin9ing ^ of late. Smt, Sirmotin Bai who wo^ co^n^el for the petitioner and perused the (n Bai (smce. deceased) filed a civit suit jdesd GS null and void, and aiso for ioner herein. During the pendency of [{ died and respondsnts No*l <& 2 movsd Ruk 2 rsad with ^ction 151 of the 1-ecord on The ground 1+iatlaT® Smt. Favour of respondent No.l and thereby ste Smt. Sirmotin Bai and respondent in the jand of hte Smt, Sirmotin Bai, fh^ fiuit, afi fiuch he b®Qrrayed afi the ^l-"- ^i XI-HC-78 vjTSfq <-<414||0*<, U>-alK-l<l<?, RlOW^ *ii«ioia?l:n^ 3TT^^Tcl5TR-ti<h ^H3n^^T$p^i<p Ip Barve 3TT^?T q^q? (ijcti^dcEi) W?t200 ^?ITWr^rf^T 3H^$T -^- plctintiff, Learned trial Court applieation. Learned counsel .for appiicatson ha^sr b^en altowed respond'ent No.l. Therefore, n^ ought not to haye allowed the aj^ 8ut, I do not find any counse! for the petitioner has n| the probate Is required on property in the 5tate of infirmit^ in the order impugne^, mate out a case for invoking 227 of The ConstiTution of Irl iiabb to be dismissed and it is a^ Consequently, M.(W.)P. stand dispo^d of, v^hiJe acceptin9 the above, allowed the <P1<4fc3i<IlT1 *1MC5T^ f^^Sl ^FJII-CI^ ^3rf^T3H^^T th^ petitioner hersin argued that the wi|t'hout any probate issued in favour of (erely on The basis of wiii tn'Gi Court ^plication. Isubstance in this argument. Learned i(3t been abie to point out any law where "j+ie will ^xecut^d in r^spect of th^ Chhaljtisgarh. I do not find any iJJegaiity or The petitioner has not been abfe to ^xtraordinary jurisdiction under Articte |dia. The writ petition is, therefore, x^cordingiy di^missed. r-po.3324/2005 and I.A. No.7462/2005 etxi Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge