^ \. '^:i. m(m<X»( TOPCaiHA'I'TISQ*RffiATBI&AS»BR W.P.JS0.24S/2000 PBTITIOM®1 Vs. RESPQHDENTS M/s. Laxman Bbal Daya BIiai Patel, a partoership firm, through fhe partner, Diaesh Lal Patel, Patet Complex, Padmaaablipur, Du% (M.P.) The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Collector, Durg (MP) The Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamp, Govemment of Madhya Pradesfa GwaUor (MF) The District Reglstear aod Goltector &f Stamps, Drp-g (MP) Baiik of Baroda, Padmaiiabhpur Branch Patel Complex, Durg (Sffi) WRIT PETITIOXUBDERARTI<a,E 226/227 W THE coNSTi'niioirwnroiA (SB: Hon'bleMr. Justice Satlsh K. Agnihotri) None appears for the petitioaer. •ss 9Si, a 's^^^ • PRDBR (Passed on thte 11th day ofOctober, 2007) ,//f 1. The matter is caBed for hearing twice. On both occasions, noneappears nor anyrepresentation is made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner may not be interested ui (he matter. 2. In view offhe above, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. I 3. The Registry is directed to send a certffled copy of'jihra order to fhe petitioner farthwith. r „,, Satishl£Agiii!sotri j . Judge '