,J k y~’n1\mw: 5 > 3 $$§ a3§é ; ck93/ , IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G) SINGLE BENCH M.C.C. NO. g; 2005 J [ In arising out of Writ Petition No. 3087/04 ] APPLICANT/ ‘ A’ETITIONER M/ s. Mangilal Pagaria, Builders and Contractors. 'A firm registered under ‘ Indian Partnership Act, Represented through LSushil Chandra Pagaria, Partner, Pagaria House, Near Bus Stand, Jeewan Beema Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS §0N~APPLICANTSI /RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary Nagaria Prashashan Awas Paryawaran, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, Dist: Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Distt: Raipur (C.GJ The Joint Director, Town & Country Planning, RDA uilding, Sharda Chowk, J Raipur (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER AND/OR FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. The petitioner respectfully submits as under:~ g \ \’ W ,\ B XI—HC-22 24.3.2005 Shri Kishore Bhaduri counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Baja‘j, Deputy Government Advocate fo mspondent No. 1, 4 8n 6. Shri‘ H.B. Agaxwal, SJr..Counsel 85 Shri P. Diwakar, Sr. Counsel with Shri Pankaj' Agaxwal & Miss Pritha Ghosal, counsel for respondent No.3. I have heard the 1i arned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has plefeh‘ed this MCC for extension of time granted by this Court on 28.2.2005. ’ Vide order dated 28 2.2005 the petitioner‘s Wlit petition was dismissed on the ground that sanle is not maintainable on account of involvement of question of disputed facts in the petition and three Weeks’ time was allowed tc the petitioner to iile the civil suit before ' the appropriate court and till then parties were directed to maintain status quo. Perusal of this petition shows that the petitioner herein flled a civil suit before the regular civil court, however, that court rejected the plaint of petitioner herein under Order; 7 Rule 1 1 of CPC on the ground that one month statutory notice under Section 401 of C.G. t Municipal Corporation Act has not been issued. Against the saidi rejection order the petin'cner has preferred an appeal, which is pending before the appellate court and also one writ petition before l ; this Court, So far as that writ petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to withdraw the same. r r i ‘ XI-Hc—22 \ 3am,m,mmgi W WT a1 200 W