y^^tsf &•''''*' ® Si>riittiffi> Ren«*h s.i'ssafcjS! IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) •t WRIT PETITION f227~) N0. l^ i? OF 2011 PETITIONER Plaintiff ^yy^^ ^^^•>?"' ..••;-%&^'^^- °>•* ^ff-' ..-^c~'' v^.^ .,%&••" M/s Vinayak Construction Purana Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) Through: Proprietor Smt. Bhawna Agrawal, aged about 38 years, W/o ^••"^..-•^ Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Occupation Business, R/o Purana Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur(C.G.) VERSUS Municipa! Corporation Bilaspur, Tahsil and district Bilaspur, (C.G.) Throtigh: Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilapsur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS. ETC. AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR WRITS. ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. RESPONDENT Defendant HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No.1715/2011 PETITIONER M/s. Vinayak Construction Versus RESPONDENT Municipal Bilaspur W.P. (227) No. 1716/2011 Corporation, PfiTITIONERS Smt. Sangeeta Agrawal and others Versus RESPONDENT Municipal Bilaspur Corporation, SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT: Shri Alok Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (6-4-2011) 1. This order shaU govern disposal of W.P. (227) No. 1715/2011 and W.P.(227)No. 1716/2011. 2. Instant petitions are directed against the order dated 4-3- 2011 passed by the VIIIth Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 53-A/2010 and Civil Suit No. 54-A/2010 whereby petitionersVplaintiffs' application for resettling the issues was dismissed. 3. Learned trial Court after having found the issues have been properly framed based on fhe pleadings of fhe parties dismissed the above applications holding it is not necessary for it to 'frame the issues which may have been proposed by any of the parties to the proceedings if they Su-e not relevant. Hence this petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the order impugned, in the considered opinion of this Court, the issues have been rightly settled by the trial Court. There is no scope of interference for resettling the same warranting interference of fhis Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisoiy jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. Therefore, the petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- N.K. Agrawal Judge