Qw HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUg WRIT PETITION (227} N0. 4503/2011 Pn'rmonmns 1. Smt. IndraMam' Agawal W] O DEFENDANTS Sagarmal aged about 65 years. 2. Sagannal S/o Mrlmam Agawal aged about 7 1 years. 3. Rajenm Prasad S/o Sagarmal aged . about41 years. All R/o village Main road Takhatpur Tah. Takhatpur Dist. Bilaspur C.G. RESPONDENTS Jaspal Singh S/o Late Mchar Singh PLAINTIFF aged about 39 ycaxs cast Sikh R/o village Takhatpur Tah Takhatpur D1st B1Ia§pur C G ”r D FENDENT N0. 4 2. State of C G through Collector Bilaapur Dist. Bilaspur C.G. Satpal Singh S/o late Mehar Sing]: aged about 33 yeaxs R/O Tamerpaxa Takhatpur Tah. Takhatpur Dist. Bilaspur C.G. DEFENDEIIT N0. 5 3. M{ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE OOHSTIT‘UTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Hr. T.P.shumu, J.) Present:- Shri A. Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. Respondents No. 1 & 3 not noticed. a; omn- onnnn Mon 11/08/2011) By this peu'tion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India yeu‘tionem have challenged the legality and pmpriety of the order dated 1/7/2011 passed by Civil Judge Class-2, Takhatpur Dishict Bilaspur C.G. in civil suit No. 19 1A] 09 whereby Comt below has allowed the application for local inspection Eed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Pmcedule Code, 1908. 2. Shri A. Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners and Shxi Vinod Kumar Tekam, P.L. for the State/ respondent No. 2 are heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially one applican'on was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 5/2] 10 but thereader present \ petitioners have filed second application which was not maintainable before the Court below. @ Applicau‘on m for local inspection by appoinmg Commissioner med on behalf of the respondent No. 1 reveal that in compliance of the onier passed by this Court in civil a§péa1 No. 6256/09 omer dawd 3/8/ 10 mpondem No. 1 has m aforesaid application and Conn has passed the order on the basis of such application, I do not mid any illegality in the (mier impugned mquin'ng any interference in cxexcise of supervisory writ jurisdiction Consequently,