-HC—78 ^i__._ c_ ^E^ "1||<)|(»><|, ;5TfWTO, Isfciiyy '^Wdl **<!*^^.^•^•••-•^200^ sn^r iraw (1pfy??T) an^f^t^RT •BITSII^rWlW ^ PETITIQNERS/: fP'aintiffis) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Poo(iam Chand, S/o Shri Baijnath Beriwal, aged aboijit 50 yeara. OmjPrakash, S/o Shri Baijnath, aged about 48 yearjs. 3. Goutishanker, S/o Shri Baijnath, aged about 46 ysans 4. 5. 6. San< yearf osh Kumar, S/o Shri Baiinath, aged about 43 Bas<idev, S/o Shri Baijnath Beriwal, aged about 41 y^are. Natv|?ar Lal, S/o Shri Baijnath Beriwat, aoed aboul s7' Ali R;»o IWs Shri Shrl Ail Rais Shri abo ^F-irf^^ iT1IRTf '^,'ftT?t' •(Pn^R ^rafRiqsn^r IR/o DaniDara, Raiaarh. All bv ocoupation - s^essmsn.Tahsii end District- Raipur (C.Q.) -Versus- Shanker Oil Mill, PartnershiD Firm, throuah Budhram Agrawa!. Budhram Agrawal, S/o Ratan Lal Agrawal. Shr) Pawan Kumar Aarawal, S/o Shri Babu Lal Agr^wa!. Shrj Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, S/o Shri Gortiram Agrawal. R/o Lailunaa. Tahsil -Gharohora. Disfrtot jjarh (C.G.). ! Shivkumar. S/o Late Shri Dwarika Das, aged pt 47 years. XI-HC—78 3rcf ^)|<1||^<L), ^Tflti'l<S, |sf<4W^< ^iNrtl **<!* am^?T ^ra% (Tpf^^?) sii^iya R'ii* w sn^r stiiii* ^- Shri lAshok Kumar, S/o Late Shri Dwarika Das, agscj sbout 37 years. Botht Respondents No. 5 & 6 are resident of Danitsara, Raigarh (C.Q.). ShrilGanesh Ram. S/o Shri Gandfliram. aaed sboijt 67 years, (dead) through !ega! hsire:- a. SmtJ Gidwari Bai wife of Late Shri Ganesh Ram, 72 yeare. Surejsh Beriwal. son of Late Shri Ganesh Ram. agscj aboui 48 years. Rantesh Beriwal, son of Late Ganesh Ram, aaed 40 y^ d. f. 9. h. Jaiot Ra-rj Ajay) Rarr) Vijait ags(( Srat| year^ Smt) sn vt i. Smt yea!^. j. Smt ysans. ^>P4^frl^*f^ '^,'f^St <^T^R ^'•affOTan^CT •are. akash Beriwal, son of tate Shri Ganesh , aged 38 years. Kumar Beriwal, son of Late Shri Ganesh , agsd 38 years. Beriwal, son bf Late Shri Ganesh Ram, 34 years. Kanla Devil, W/o Shri Deendayal, aged 52 Nirmala Devil, W/o Shri Bhagwandas, aged ars. Sushifa Devil. W/o Jagdish Prasad, aged 46 Madhu Devil, W/o Rajendra Kumar, age 32 ^.^ SXt-HC—78 ^y I^^Vv^, ®Tfiy'l6,JstdiMy liWTff *41<* •WT. 200 an^w vsv {'ySyiyi) sn^i w R-)i4i ~^v ^^ *^lts K. Smt| yearp Aii (Chi /T^h H>-a^*<*r*/arh^ Smtl Geeta Bai, W/o Omoraltash Aarawal. aoed 46 y^are, Re&'dent of Budhram Omprakash Main Roajj Shakil. Koac m. Smt Prem Bai, W/o Shankar Lat, aged 34 years, res!<jlsnt of Dwarikadas Mangatram Nayaganj, Kaisjarn. residsnt n. Smtj Gaytri Devil, W/o Jagdish Prasad, aged 50 yea^, Residsnt Vivsshwar !al Jagdish Prasad, Sha(di Junipaiia Patti, Katak, Wssa. resident 10-1-2008:- Shri Sanjai K. Aarawa!, counii Todav this matter is listed for| *• Meard. The Detitionere, who are writ oetition under Artksle 227 of th4 and correctness of the order dateO Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.11( Judae deoided issue No. 4 j.e. •mt<'i<i'li iwni ^fs^t <r<>«^i< '^STfOT31I^?I Kusumdevi, W/o Bajrang Lal, aged 44 resident of Old Sadar Bazar, Raigarh iatt'sgarh) Umadevi, W/o Dr. Babu Lat, age 35 years, of Dr. Babu La! Agrawal Sakin, Kesinga, para, Raigarh (C.G.) o. Smtj resisjent Danl (Wirt Petition underArti<tle 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Sinale Bench: Hont»le_Shri»)ystteel-CLBhadoo ,et for the Detitioners. admission. pMntiffs before court beiow. have oreferred this Constitution of India, questioning the legality 23.8.2001 passed by 1 Additional District A/86 whereby learned 1 Additional District document eS settlement dated 23.8.55 wheftier the 3^1- -'ji^i^, gxften^, feroy 3(I^T •W (^I^dtia 31I^?I ?it'RFIR? wrsii^raCTR; ^>MlCT^TTt <4w^ff ^t^t ^fsf^TC ^'aTfa'Tan^r TOIRR'Hft? STI^T c ¥* is admissibte in evidence and held Sectjon 17 of the Reaistration Act is not admissible. Learned counsel for the Detit) decided by the subordinate court a^ the provisions of Rule 2 of sub-rulel suit against the respondents for Schedute C & D belongs to the belongs to them in which the 23.8.55 executed between the ancfe the resDondents herein that the ddc was framed and same has beenl evidence in the case. The whether the document is admissibt4 framed, decision has been taken therefore. it cannot be said that thel nol exereised the iurisdiotion whicH anv iurisdictional error in order to iriv 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is liabfe to b^ petitionere are at liberty to chalteno< Thev can atso raise other alternativfc the evidence in order to overcomle account ofthis matter. that the documents reauired reaistration as oer same has not been reaistered. therefore, tt Amit alnd joners argued that Ihis issue has wrongly been preliminary issue and the same is contrary to (2) of Order 14. The petitionere herein filed a ideclaration that the propertv mentioned in olaintiffe, whteh is in thar oossession and that plai^rtiffs ptaced reliance o?}the doeument dated ;^stors of the parties. Objection was raised by jcument is not admissible. therefore, an issue ^decided before allovflng the oarties to tead Court was reauired to take deoiston in evidence or not & that is whv this issue vus document has been admissible in evidence, Itrial Court has exceeded the lurisdtetion or has is vestina in Ihat Court & tias not committed irivoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articte subotjdinate artd dismissed and it js herebv dismissed. The the said decision in apDeat ifthevso advised. s avaitable to them at the time of recording of difficulty which is being faced by them on Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge