' Q67 iv IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WJQEivbfu 32.:) 2008. ‘ PETIgONERS is 1J r— /1. Pumshottam S/ok' Shri Narsingh < #eu w Nay”, Das, aged about 60 years Occupation Cultivation , R/o Village Navghatta Teh‘sil Sarangarh Disu. Raigarh (CG).- vrzksts - RESPDNDENTS 1 Mamvat‘i ‘ Wdi/of Santram Maui (Rem: Mmw 43/ L4? )%W On subst1tut10n 85 add1t1on LR S (1) Tegnu S/o Jagat Ram aged 45' years Caste Mah Occupauon Cu1t1vat10n R/o Vlllage Chuhlpah Presently res1d1ng at V111age Pumpau ,Ps Baramkela Tehsn Sarangarh Distt Raigarh (CG). (11) Kushva S/o Jagat Ram aged 35 years Caste Mah Occupatlon Cu1t1vat10n R/ o V111age Chumpah P S Samya Tehsil Sarangarh D1stt (Smce Deceased) Raigarh (CG) . , .H am wxm /2. Indro alias J’ayanand S/o. Jagat Ram aed 6O ears Caste ali g y M Occupao ultivation R/o Village tin C Bilaigarh Pos Manipr Tehil t ku s Sarangh Distt. Rah .G.). ar igar (C f hh hugh / 3. State o Chattisgar Tro igh Collector Raigarh Distt. Raar (co). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA § n W) i \kH mm ......RQ .....).91 mm (Wu) t x S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice N.K. Ag‘arwal 14.07.2009 Shri SN Nande, Advocate fur the petitioner. Shri MK Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No, 1. Ms, Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on admission. The instant petition is dire ted against the order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the Civil J dge, Ciass II, Sarangarh, in :ivii‘ suit No. 32A/04 whereby an whereunder the appiication 'iled by the plaintiff/respondent u. der Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC has heen allowed. Shri Nande submits tht before suloStitution of respondents in place of decease plaintiff, it was necessary or the court to inquire into th merits of the matter that ~‘. L lat vhether inquiry they was intact necessary. inherited With the ut uit making property any or inquiry, not and the) for ubstitution order was passed whi h is illegal and deserves to e quashed. 3 " a J "r r" 4' fr’w ,y M. \\ \ Jerused' l have the heard pleadings learned and counse'l recdrd appearing In reply for fled the parties, by the petitioner before the trial court there is nothing which can suggest that this objection has been raised by the petitioner ‘ efore the trial court. Moreover, the substitution was ordered y the trial court for the pur ose of bringing the legal epresentatives of deceased plain ift on record so that the suit ay proceed. As far as merits the matter are concerned, e petitioner is free to raise all th objections during the trial. Having heard Shri Nande and having perused the cord, l do not nnd and jurisdi ional error/illegality in the rder impugned so as to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of t is court under Article 227 of the onstitution of India. lt is well settled principle f law that this Court, in ercise of its supervisory jurisdic 'on under Article 227 of the onstitution of India, should refrai itself from interfering with t e order passed by the Court b low, except in such cases here perversity, illegality, irregul rity orjurisdictional error is it large on the face of the record which is not in the present 4 c se With the aforesaid observati n, l am of the considered i o inion that this petition deserve l to be and is accordingly l i l m@__._._ di missed. No order asto costs. Sd/- t "= N.K. Agrawal - Judge Sahu i l ) zee $ a“; s1 mm (Wm awarri‘nfwtm swam: