cf-^\^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.NO.-^1~^4- /2003 ,,/ ¥ PETTTIONER/ PLABNTIFF RESPONDENTS -*> ..A€ \w. y'i'' / 4 x^' ^%- V£/^ ^^••.\* 'y- ^' ^/ 1--^ F Goktd S/0 TilochanMaharAged 56 years , R/OVUlagekhapriROBarbashpui; Patwari circleNo. 38, Rev. circle Thasil Gunderdehi Dist. Durg (C.G.) Versus : 1) Rajwantinbai W/o Punu Ram Age 56 Y^ars R/o VillageMokhaP/oRajoli Thasil GunderdeM Distt. Durg(C.G.) 2) Romnafh Gangeshwar S/o Late BhurwaAge 56 Years R/o Village Darbari Navagaon P.0. Coba Thasil BalodDistt. Durg (C.G.) 3) YadavRamGangeshwarS/oRomnathAge 40 years Office of VIDHANSABHA RAIPUR P.0., Thasil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4) Doman Lal S/o Romnath Age 37 Years Agriculture Extension Ofificer at Village Bagbahra Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 5) SmtArtiD/oAmarChandRaipuriaR/oAmar Sada^Near Ganga ©hawan,ShikariPara Balod Distt. Durg (C.G.) 6) Bhoklu Ramchandradeo Mahar S/o Pimu Ram Mahar Age 48 Years R/o Village Mokha P.0. Rajoli Thasil Gunderdehi Distt. Durg(C.G.) 7) Bhagwat S/o Jainu Mahar ( Kotwar ) Village Khuteri P.Q. Barbaspiu- Thasil Gunderdehi Distt.Durg(C.G.) 8) Govt.OfChhattisgarh ThroughCollectorDurg (C.G.) ^ ..'" / ..--" PKtolON UNDERARTICLE 226/227 ^ONSTITUTION OF INDIA :l>'';:.^."::''^:'.;.^'';'y^^.^^^';f^.'^ wss' XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T f<rii<=bl 5t)^i<=r»^n^ \€-^']>.^ ^l^dl 7^ ^l^i<rt^> ^Til^^i^ i 3TTi^T '175^R ^^.::e.;.^^..Le.y^l '^^T' 2003, 3?n^T '?7RH^R ^%a 15.04.2004 Shri Santosh Yadu, co|uiisel for the petitioner. Application for urgenjt Heard. By this writ petition jhearing is allowed. Constitution of India the p^titioner challenged the order dated 25 11.2003 passed by Wtli | Civil JudgV, ©lassII Durg in Cml Suit Case No. 8A/2001 w]|ierefoy the j^pplication filed under Order ISRule lQDfC.P.C.jh|asbeenrej^Gtedonthegroundthat the petitmner can siibmit tt4 Having considered fhe| and on perusal of the ordeil Ral vs Ramachander Rai reit as in the case of Raniit S JT2004 (4) SC 127, ia- the jurisdictional error warran order in exei^i§e^fits jurisc Gonstitution of India. Thd However, the petitioner may| any such eventpalily aiises. Conseqyently, M.W.P. of. chNid^r< HHdll "^ f^ir <rn^«< i7J3TNH37T^T filed LmderjArticle 226/227 of the certifled c ipy^^l |fac1^ aad ciycuiustances of the case of the Coui-t below and in view of the law laid down by the Aj)ex Court iii the case of SLirya Dev "I1 orted inAIiER 20031 SC 3044 as weU ingti vs Bavi Prakash reported in |opinion of jthis Court, there is no (ing uiterfei|ence in the impugned |ictionunderArtk;le 226/227 ofthe petition iialls and is dismissed. raise the grouncls in appeal in case No. 3691/03 alsb jstands disposed Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ^ .:?^ :':i ws