HIOH C<MSG W CHHATTtSGARH AT EULASPUR W. P. (Cl N0.3212 of 2007 Petitioner KedarNath Shulda, aged about 79 yeare, Caste-Brahman, S/o. Laf®Kishan Prasad, R/o. h^r h4angla Chowk, Infront of Lafa Gas Agency, Bilaspur, P.S. City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bllaspur (C.G.) Versys Resoondents 1. Nandtal Shulda, Aged about 7S years, S/o. Kishan Prasad Shukta, R/o. Viitage Puigaon, Tahsil and District Vardha (M.S.) (Dead) (a) Rajesh Shulda, aged about 47 years, S/o. Late Nandlal Shukla, R/o. Bachchhraj Dharmshala Vardha (M.S.) (b) Shailesh Shukla, aged aboirt 44 years, Sto. Late Nandlal Shukla, R/o. Badora, Dl^tct Chandrapur (M.S.) (c) Sanjeev Shukla, Aged about 41 years, S/o. Late Nandlal Shukla, R/o. Pulgaon, DisXt. Vardha(M.S.) (d) Smt. Sushma, aged about 37 yeare, W/o. Ashok Kumar Pyasi, R/o. Oamoh Naka, Near I.T.I. Jabalpur (M.P.) (e) Smt. Madhuri, aged about 36 years, W/o. Diwakar Dutta Shukla, R/o. Near Pani Tanta, Chandrapur flW.S.) 2. Bhagwan Ctes Shukla, aged about 70 yeare, S/o. Late Kishan Prasad Shukla, R/o. Shivam Colony Banganga Marg, Balpurva, Tahsll and Distt. Shahdol (M.P.) 3. Sevak Ram Shukla, aged about 65 years, S/o. Late Kishan Prasad Shulda, R/o. Koriyan Mohalla, Purani BasU, Shahdol (M.P.) 4. Hori Lal ShuMa, aged about 63 years, S/o. Late Kishan Prasad Shutda, R/o. Rawat Para, Tikrapara, Bitspur (C.G.) 5. Basant Kumar Shukla, aged about 58 years. S/o. Late Kishan Prasad Shukla, R/o. Revenue Colony Quarter No. 11-B, Sector-6, Bhilal, Tahsll 2 and Di^rictDurg (C.6.) 6. Shw KumarShukla,s®edabout 56 years, S/o. Late Kfehan Prasad Shukla, Krishi Vlstar Adhikari, Karyalaya Up Sanchalak, Krishr Wbhaff, Tahsil and District Raigarh WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench :- Hon'ble Shri Jusfice Satish K. Agnlhotri Present:- Shri Anil Kant Gupta, Advocate for the P^iUoner. ORDER (Passed on this 12m day of June,2007) 1. By this peUUon, filed under Articte 227 of the CorefituUon of India, the petitioner quesUons the legalKy and vaWdity of the order dated 24.4.20)7 (Annexure P/1) passed by ffie VIth Addttional District Judge, Bitaspur in Miscellaneous Chril Appeal No. 04106. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner/ptairtiff ffled a Civil Sut, being Civil Suit No. 70 A/05, before the III"' Civil Judge Ctass-11, Bilaspur tor dectaration of titto and pwmanent injunctton against the respondents. The !!1 Gm! Judge Class-11, Bi'aspur vkte order dated 12.5.2005 (Annexure P/2) granted intenm fnjunetion in faveur of petiUoner in the applicatton fited under Order ^, Rute 1 and 2 read with SecUon 151 of the Code of Civit Proeedure ^or short "the CPC"), holding that the peCtiwier was in posseaion of the suft land. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatlsfied vinth the erder, Vwe respondents preferred an appeal. being Miscellaneous Ch/11 Appeal No. 04106, before the VIth AcMJUonal District Judge, Bilaspur, wherein the \flth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur after having consldered all the aspects, cam®to the following conctusion:- •leaddB sin p9AM>||e AiBuipiioooe pue J ^ J|^fc uy(l»lhu, It.lln (fey lis^lho S>U>y d> |1»IM> (M>Sft t-ye g plto ^ y»l^» Ub^B. kh yla UbP> '^ $U» ^tfit J^ l^hllO <y ^ia U»tb(yii ikye yatb ^ ^ imia JfcUt t^i. ^ ^lt^fete^ ^ ItlTf.S'lh ^tt 1 ^pfc Ife ^ l»||f>b^ 2>li*T.ie tajy i»it> cy St^Jlb ll»lln IB-^ ^t gja. 1US h.lAlb.lb- (* laj»H> * lnS><t>l}>y <b l*l>^(je ^ iisitajay y»iia»ie<y g ujs>'y 1>.11*|3»> Itb h.lhu |^ Iblb.b l^l* StKblSh cb l*t»>Ilii bftlk ^ illb d> llnla^la ^ i^t ^lfe klfttle ib J^l.lta&iR ^ l^jy ^ |jilb ^j il»^ UbjPk IHkdt U^jj.Uft (J* 31» jab I g J^U UbJ^lb- ll*lln lb|y k<b ll»i>ltah(» ^b (aitlh Ih.Sali ltt8fi ^ MtalK» d> (na<b UbCk l.>bd» '^ llt»cfe ^. ^tlS ^lte to l(jttt> ^j. ^ l£ttt^ S<fe Sb ISfe^ '^ Utfi Ijfe (n»(b <bD jain 1 g Ul^jj.a.tft Itll* lcb MkSi li^ Is^B Mlt& y-bate Jt* h» ^> 31bl» jf Ute ^> ln^ll»b fifeE. ^ ^ 11^3. 2afa^ ^ ^PViiyh ^»V> '^ ^lt ^fe l&^ y*icb ^3^<h ^to |d> in^iiM.fa ^ OOOZ/SO/80 J^: &lfe 1 ^ th.lBb ^<h i>ih§> i<s^b> S>IK» )>ibS> y.bfeie yau^ i<fe ^tf^> ^. oooz/eo/80 tt-ji-y ^ i^hi>it> ^hte ^ |]>ib u^hy ^»n>S "g j^u uyb.byip ii-ia yattt JA In^llMtb Ubft lcb l.>ll.»*^IU>y y«. J[pd> J|* j^l.bbyio ^ ^lb Skh 'g IbtBb il*[3 ^tift lcb in^liM.b ^ OOOZ/EO/80 it>lt*y 4!fe Jte» J^ fett lBhl& ^.hie ^.Utp> 1 g lhl( ibty ife(i fchtehlfe iu> uiio '&itky J^ fc^ahtBk ^ l>S»^l» IISIlaja^J ytUAte ^ oa.ofiOta tst i^us pyhSti- z te& t irfry 'ee i^u& ^ ^i& ^fc ^lfc I ^ (t^ ^b i&^ thtehlii li^a ^i. ^ iaUil!; ^ ^SAI^ ^k ^t pa l^i rhtehlft ^A ^ JVtel^l& ^ In^ltAb 1 g (>1. ^<y j^l* ISi^ ln^ll»t» J^ ijttia ^»p»i ^ uaj& j,pfe ^ .^aia eai>^ J^. fe»ii»ih- ^lfe Sl^ ^. W^L 2aiA ^ t*PQfeyh ^ .felfc-tt. c 6. B/ I have heard tearned counsel appearing for e (wtitionsr and perused the rerorels and documents awrended thereto. 1 havc not found any infirmity, Ulegality or jurisdictlonal error in the order. The impugned order is unexceptionable and does ntit warrant any interference. It is well settled principte of law that imcter Artcle 227 of tte Constitutlon of India, this Court has Jurisdlction of judicial review of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings baswl on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of taw or there is grave failure of jusUce or grave Injusttee has occasiwied ttiereby. Further, ttiis Court can atso entertaln the patttlon in Us supervisory jurisdiction if ttiere is perversity, inregularity or Blegality in ttie process of decision, not in the decision Usetf. ^ a result and for the reasons aforastated, Js peWon is dismissed, summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihom Judge