Rl.f i .• C.-i5-.V INTHE HON'BLE HIGHCOUKTOFCfctMAmSGARHAT BILASPUR rc.G.V WRITPETITION (227yNO.'?o9VA OF 2009 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF / .^^. ^^1;@-'" <...-*'^^\^-"1"' ^'yoy ^yw. 9<e%°'.t..--" >•• RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS '^ Dashrath Ram Son of Late Dhanpat Ram, aged about 35 years, Occupation Cultivator, Resident of Village Danauli (Khurd), Post Darripara, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS 1. MohanSon of Bhola, Caste Rajwar, aged about 40 years, Occupation Cyltivator; 2. Sohah Son of Bhola, Caste Rajwar, aged about 36 years, Occupation Cultivator; 3. Johan Son of Bhola, Caste Rajwar, .aged about 32 years, Occupation Cultivator; Respohdent No.l to 3 are residents of Village Danauli Khurd, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil SLirajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). 4. Mantoriya D/o Bhola, Caste Rajwar, aged about 45 years, Resident of Village Runiyadeeh, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District ^urguja (C.G.). ^SsS. / PLAINTIFFS Basdaihin D/o Bhola, Caste Rajwar, aged about 30 years, Resideht of Village Basdai, Police Station Surajpur, Tahsil Surajpur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.). /6. Geri Widow of Bhola, aged about 65 years, Caste Rajwar, R.esident of Village Danauli Khurd, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). /~1. Dhanuram Son of Nanda, Caste Rajwar, aged aboul 45 years, OcGupati6n Cultivator, Resident of Village Danauli Khurd, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpyr, District Surguja CC.G.). ^8. State of Chtiattisgarh, through the Collector Syrguja (C.G.). ^9. Parvati Wife of Late Dhanpat Ram, aged about 56 years, Occupatibn Housewife, Resident of Village Danuali, CKhurd), Post Darripara, Tahsil Surajpur, DistrictSurguja(G.G.). ^-IC). karmato D/o Late Dhanpat Ram, Wife of Rajaram, aged about|42 years, Occupation Housewife, Resident of yillage Girjapur, Police 'Station Patna, Tahsil District Kaifiya Baikunthpur, ^•::-^l^?KKt|»rf!^. (C.G.). — ^^^^^i^ V-- ^ll^ Dashmen Bai D/o Late Dhanpat Ram, Wife of Jagdish Ram, aged about 32 years, Occupation Housewife, Resident of Village Sirsi, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). ^12. Batan Bai D/o Late DhanpatRam, wife of Shobhnath,aged about 30 years, Occupation Housewife, Resident of Village Ragda, Post Basdai, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). 713; Chinfamani D/o Late Dhanpat Ram, Wife of Babloo, aged about 25 years, OccUpation Housewife, Resident of Village Gangoti, Post Bhaiyafhan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). -14. JagrrioHan Sbn of Mahipat, aged about 35 years; ^15. Budhram Son of Mahipat, ageld about 30 years; /-16. Munria Soh of Mahipat, aged about 20 years; /17. Phoolbas D/o Mahipat, aged about38years; 18. Nanki D/o Mahipat, aged about :3Z years;.- ''^-a.aS' : •' 1 ,:1..: •!jr;: •~'»^wsae^fw^Bses-..^^SK^" Respondent No. 14 to 18 are residents pf Village Khadapara, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFJNDIA K ^; + -HC-22 t^ aii^r^ii Wt'h sii^r gRNyuRd 7' •ys'^fPWv^, 'S'^WfS. hwwy. ^ 3^?T XR^^^tj// yp c'^^)"'vo'-^&T1''/ °' "HT,'-380— *41t?ll a>*<l<* f^^T' sii^r ^giwdfsw S.BJ-lQFi'bie.Shrl Jysi[ce_N.K. Agar Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsei for Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panei Hsard on admission. Feeling aggrievsd by the ord^ Second Civi! Judge, Class-il, Surajp< N0.161-A/2008 whereby and whereur) the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14| been dismissed on the ground that pr| the piaintiff/petitjoner has already cl orderto re-open th®case, the same !f 2. Having heard iearnsd counsej perused the order impugned, 1 do petition. The petittoner has not fifadl hi's evidence and the same has beenl Therefore, in the considered opinion not committed any iliegality m passin^ injustice so as to invoke extraordinar^ ArticSe 227 of the Constitutlon of Indial 3. It is well settied principie exercise of its supen'isory jurisdict Constitution of india, should ref order passed by the Court below j:he petitioner. L^wyer for the State. <+l<4[<rf;IOT1 'RTRcff "4 'f^1^' <f^+^K ^?3l1?OT 311^1 dated 11-08-2009 passed by ^r, District Surguja in Civil Suit Ider an application preferred by sub-rule (3) of the C.P.C. has lor to filing of those documents, >sed hls evidence and now in asbeenfiied. for the petitionerand having ict find any substance in the such document before ciosing filed after closing his evidsnce. ?f this Court, the Sria! Court has such order leading to manifest jurisdict'on ofthis Court under of law that (ion under Article 227 of the friin from interferina with the II Ul 11 except in such cases where ['cit®^fs4 SII^gqil feu^i ss^s St*t Kvr *<l«ni sh*<ich 3T^T^X(5^ ^.:t lofC^i->)'^.^0^^ "^i. 200 •^^1" an^iT^giwgfCT \- perv'ersity, iSJegaiiiy, irregularity iarge on the face ofthe record, wt| 4. The pefition has no merit dismissed on adm,!ssfon stage. , 5. However, the petitloner is ^ inan appeai if so required to be +i''(l<"i'iil-i iiicff 4 fe<A <I»I<^K ^T3(PgiI3Tl^l or junsdictiona! error is < fich is not In the present ca [and the same is accordirng!y t tiberty to raise all the points Sd/- N.K.Agarwal 1 Judge .; [^ifi^-