x» " BEFORE THE HON’BLE FIIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION U(A.227 No. éZO’i5 L 2010 PETITIONERS 1. Anand Ku}nar Hotwani, 3MLE Rggkugg’g S/o Harchamal Hotwani Aged about 31 years, (Defendants No.1) 2. Arun Kumar Hotwani, S/o Harchamal Hotwani , Aged about 29 years (Defendants No.2) I Both R/o Bhoipara Raipur, C.G. 3. Dr. Sawal Das Ramwani, S/o Late Banshi Das Ramwani, Aged about 62 years R/o Mana Basti, Tehsil & District Raipur, C.G. (Father's name is not written in order dated 03/02/10) (Defendant No.3) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. Bhageia Satnami S/o Chherkuram Satnami Aged about 62 Years R/O Village Satpara Post Kondapar, Tehsil Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G,) ( Plaintiff ) 2. State of Chhattisgarh though Collector, District Raipur, C.G. I (Defendant No.4) WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF 'THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. The petitioners named above beg to submit the particulars of the betition as under : - i i PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS: ,r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 2075/2010 PETITIONERS : Anand Kumar Hotwani & 2 others Versus RESPONDENTS : Bhagela Satnmni & another Appearance: Shri Hemant Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioners. Miss. Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2, on advance notice. VVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (3.05.2010) Heard on admission. (2) The present petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking a direction to the Trial Courtto decide the question of adequacy of the court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court as preliminary issue as per its order dated 3/02/2010. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that inspite of there being an observation in the order passed by the Trial Court on 3/02/2010 to the eEect that the issue regarding court fees and jurisdiction shall be tried as a preliminary issue, the Trial Court, while framing issue on 10/03/2010 has not framed any issue much less a preliminary issue in this regard. (4) The petitioner thereader submitted an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing of additional issues. (5) Shri Kesharwani submits that the application dated 3/04/2010 under‘Ord’er 14 Rule 5 CPC (Annexure P-6) is still pending. (6) In View of the pendency of the application under Order 14 Rule 5, the Trial Court is expected to decide this application before proceeding ahead with the trial. (7) ' With this observation, this petition stands disposed o£ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 7 \