IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE . AT BILASPUR. (C.G.l W.P. 227 N0. t46^5 72009 PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF: RESPONDANTS: DEFENDANTS: Shri Girdhar Prasad Chandrakar, S/o late Shri Kedarnath Chandrakar, agedabout 60 years, R/o Vill. Kohaka, Tah. & Distt. Durg, (C.G.) At present R/o Motipara, Durg, Tah. & Distt. Durg, (C.G.) VERSUS ^\. The College Ward Co- operative Housing Society Limited, Registration No. D.R.P./R.P.R.-29, Now Sunder Nagar Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur (C.G.) Registration No. D.R.P.-29, dt. 23/03/1966, Through Chairman, Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chairman, the College Ward Co- operative Housing Society Limited, Registration No. D.R.P./R.P.R.- 29/1866, Now Sunder Nagar Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Raipur (C.G.) Registration No. D.R.P.-29, dt. 23/03/1966, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G) 3. Sharad Shukla, S/o Not known, (Mob. No. 98271- 35678), S.S. Construction, Near Desh Bandhu School, Station Road, Raipur, Post, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^/ \9.^ /M ^J" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMARMISHRA. J. W.P.f227lhto. 4065 of 2009 PETITIONER Shri Girdhar Prasad Chandriilcar. Versus TheCollegeWar'clCo-Qperative Housing Sociefy Lim'rted and ottiere. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THECONSTITUTIOMOF 1NDIA. Appearance: Shri B.P. Gupta, counsel for petitioner. Shri Kshitiz Sharma, counsel for responctent No. 3. ORALORDER (07/02/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. This is a petition under AriJcte 227 of the ConsUtution ofIndia by the ptaintitT whose application under Order 26 Rute 9 of C.P.C. for local inspection has been rejected by the trial Court. (2) The plajntiff has filed a suit for declaration to ttie effect that he is the owner of land bearing Khasra No.1230/1 plot No. 291 situated at the College Ward Co-operative Housing Society, Sunder Nagar, Raipur. Respondent No.3 is the owner of Khasra No. 1225/2 plot No.291 and according to the plaintiff the said respondent No.3 has in fact occupied plajntWs plot bearing Khasra No.1230/1 plot No.291. (3) Plaintiffs prayer for temporary injuncUon was rejected on the ground that it is not ctear as to whether plot No.291 fe part of Khasra No.1230/1 or of Khasra No.1225/2. The plaintiff thereaftcir moved this sybject application uncler Order 26 Rute 9 of C.P.C. for issuance of commjssion for local inspecti'on. ^-^ (4) Trial Court has rejected the application after observing that the present suit is not concemed with Rot No251 forj^<^ thf ItP^l inspecfion has been sought. Leamed counsel fw the^p^oner w^lcl submft that there was a typing mj^ke in des(^U^g the pN (^^ therefore the teamed trial Court should haytpermitted the petitioner to correctthe mistake. On perus?! otttieplati'rtamttheiipRlj^ition itwould appear that ft ispossiblethgtdesGFiptJQn otKhasra number W9S9 human error. (5) Since the frjal Court has not CQnsidered ttte applicsrtion on n^nts and has rejected the same on technical ground. The peUtioner, jf he so desires, may move this application afresh after proper descripltten of th® suit land. (6) Wjth the above observation, the instant petition "stands disposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge