^^-^ cvv,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN 227 N0. 4893/2011 PETITIONBR JUDGEME.NT DEBTOR RBSPONDBNTS DECREE-HOLDER 1. 2. 3. VERSUS 4. Smt, Rukmaai Bai, Age about 52 Years, W/o Narayaa Prasad Sharma, Narayao. Prasad Shanna, Age About 60 Years, S/o Prithvi Raj Sharma, Dhannendra, Aged about 35 Years, S/o Narayaa Prasad Sharma, AU R/o House No. 227, Saatara Badi, TahsU District Durg (C.G,). Manjula Vyas, Age not ktiown, W/o Late Naad Kishore Vyas, Mukund Vyas, Age not kaown, S/o Late Nand Kishore Vyas, Radhika Vyas, Age not known, D/o Late Nand Kishore Vyas, Respondent No. 1 to 3 R/o H.No. 121, BijU Nagar, Indore (M.P.) Rajkuniar Vyas, Age not known S/o Late Naad Kishore Vyas, R/o Tituidihi, Qtr. No. M.D. 82, Aditya Nagar, Titurdihi, Distriet Durg (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF mDiA. (SB :Hon^ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shd Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondents not noticed. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 26/08/2011) 1. By fhis petition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioners have challenged fhe legaMty aad propriety of fhe order dated 12/5/2011 passed by 3rd Additional Distdct Judge, Durg (C.G.) ia execution case No. 6A/05 whereby appUcation filed for brmiiig the legal representatives of deceased decree holder has been aUowed. 2. Learaed counsel for the petitioners submits tliat two different applications were filed by different legal representatives of decree ^^.:.-^ %'%^,^say "'^S&KSf^-'-^ INNNN- -^- ^ holder which has been allowed by fhe Court below aad has ignored fhe objection filed by petitioners. 3, Order unpugned penised. 4. Learaed counsel Ibr fhe petitioners fraaMy adinitted tliat petitioners have objected the application aiid speci&cally opposed fhat appUcation is false aad aforesaid facts are subject niatter of the evidence. It reveals fhat petitioners have opposed fhe application but has not speci&cally denied fhe averments inade in application filed on behalf of tlie petitioners although, appUcation before Court below was not mamtamable under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 ofthe Code of Civil Procedurc, 1908 (in short 'the Code5) ia tihie Ught of Rule 12 of Order 22 of fhe Code but fhe same was inaiiitamable under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 16 offhe Code. By atlowiag such application tiial Court has not comniitted aay iIlegaMty requuiag aay iaterference ia exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at fhe stage of niotion itself. 5. Interim appUcations are stands disposed of No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^