@@ mm arm BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 55W C22?) §§g$ , "JV” w.P.%’No. /2o1o 3 ...... PETITIONERS: 1) SanfoshiniVSahani, d/o $9 GFéNDBMT$ Lafe Ambarish Sahani ‘ aged 28 years 2) Smf. Beena Pani Sahani W Wd/O Ambarish Sahani aged 53 year‘s 3) Sangram Sahani, s/o Ambar'ish Sahani aged 24 years 4) Devjani Sahani, s/o Ambarish Sahani aged 26 years All R/o M.I.G—C/449, .\ Padmanabhpur', Durg, (ca) Versus RESPONDEN’TS: 1) Smt. Priskilla Sahani FLHNTZ In: Wd/o Rajendr'a Sahani aged 44 years 2)‘Ku. Sakshi Sahani D/O Rajendra Sahani aged 12 years 3) Abhisheik Sahani S/O Rajendra Sahani aged earsgz ‘gz alt—mm“: m 7 é r mm5err/eai 4/) 34% 7 avi‘71197) fMfLi/i " HUDco, Amdinagar, 4 Bhnai Dist burg, (ca) W’—[h"/ R RTIC E 27 OE RIT P TITION UN ESSUANCE OF CONSTITUTION MANDAMUS. CERTIORERI OF INDIA ANQ FOR QTHER APPROPEIATE WRIT! S) ETC; Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Priskilla Sahani Wdlo Rajendra Sahani and others Appearance: Shri Arjun Yadav, counsel for the petitioners. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (3.05.2010) Heard on admission. (2) The learned Trial Court has paitly rejected the petitioner’s application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC. The Trial Court has refused to frame additional issues no.2 and 3 proposed by the petitioner in his application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. (3) The p‘laintiE‘ has preferred the instant suit for declaration of ownership, declaration that will dated 14/06/07 is illegal and void and for recovery of possession. (4) The petitioners/defendants, While denying the suit allegation have pleaded that the suit is not maintainable as it has been submitted after 6 months from the date of dispossession. It is also stated that the family tree mentioned in the plaint is incorrect and the correct family tree is stated in the written statement. On these pleadings counsel for the petitioners submits that issue regarding correctness of the family ~ tree and the suit being barred under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act should have been framed by the Trial Court. (5) Having perused the documents annexed with the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any error ofjurisdiction or illegality. It has been observed by the Trial Judge that the plaintiff has not filed the suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. (6) Though there is a pleading that the plaintiff has been dispossessed by the defendant on 25/02/07, yet since the suit is also for declaration of title and for declaration that the will dated 14/06/07 is void, the present is not a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. (7) There is no substance in the writ petition which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge