Y\s\ s\" N THB mOH COURT OF JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR. ^&yi&W p6TirwCHHAmSGARH y APPLICANT/: jlAppeUaiit) <^ Miscellaneous Civll Cas ^ /.y^\ \.?$ ^ ^•' .-<?' y .^•^' ^' ^Bhat Khande Lalit Kala Shiksha Samiti, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, Through its Secretary N.G. Rai, S/o Late Gagan Chandra Rai, Aged about 71 years, R/o 515, Bairan Bazaar, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Vereus NON-APPLICANT/: Sespondent) Surjit Sen, S/o Late Paritosh Sen, Aged about 42 years, R/o Giirukul Parisar, Kalibadi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. APPI^ICATION FOR RBCALLING THEORDBR DATBD -26.09.3006 PASS@> BY TfflS HON'BLE COURTIN SECOND APPEAL NOs4S8/2005 ;»,^ XI-HC-22 . si^wr f^Ri.a.n^r '*Hi4>yRa- S^siTqiyPr, ©rftffTO,teigy 3tict,ciM^ch A<-..fe.(A^.-.^o;.3Z»Z<3><?^ »«*«niSt>« —l^-vl'-~i;T—"~—'^°w2(^ W^TOTcTRITBf^tT »i«fri<n^*<itii-))'^fei<!) <Rf+<;i< ^aif^rsn^r CHAMBER itROCEBDINGS 0^.03.2007 The appHcaat by the insta^it petition has prayed fcr recaUing the order dated 26-9-2006 pass^d ia Second Appeal No. 468/2005 whercby the appeal preferred bjr the appUcant Iias beea disposed (ces available to fhc rcspondeut ia ofwith a direction fhat the servi ffae acconunodation in questioD] occupied by the respondent shaB be restored and thev shaU not taterfere wifh tbe said services tiU he is lawfulty cvicted by a coaip^tent Court. This application for reca^ing of order dated 26-9-2006 has been preferred by the applic^nt along with an application for le same as it has beea filed with a condonation ofdelay for filing delay of77 days. I bscwe peruscd the uup^igned order passed by the leamed District Judge, Raipur in Misc. ffae appeal preferred by the noi Civil Appeal No. 33/2005 whereby •appficant a^inst the o<rder of Rent ControBmg Authority, Raipur|dated 8-7-2005 in Case No. 03- 90(4)2004-05 has been allofl|'ed and - fhe applicant has been directed not to interfere in thej water aad eleetrk; suppty scrvices availabte to fhc respondent tiU ^ decree of eviction is obtained fi-om ftie coinpetent court. Leame4 District Judge afler heariKg tile parties faas recorded a findi4g ttiat retetionship of tenant and landlord existed between the p^trties. (<ti^y^) ^•^siZSSISE^^^^^ai^^SuL^^^asa^KaA^^?" ^^^^.•-..',-1 XI-HC-22 3^ '<ii<(ici<i, e>Tf1^f'ie, fSjciiyy 3li^l<<5|ch , y'ie.u5 ^e-^^o . 5/^007- IIHPITihllttl ••••••••"••••••••... gpj. ^g^ R<)«^ ^ sn^r^r f^wsn^T *t|i+yRd »i«Fd41^«iKctTffte'<;l<Riwit ^stl^rsn^r Taking iuto consideratkfn the reasons assigned by the leamed Distnct Judge and furf(icr consideriag the subiaissions of fhe couasel for fhe appeUaut-a^pUcant, the order luidcr review has been passed aad no case is niape out for recaUmg fhe oider dated 26-9-2005 passed in Seco^d Appeat No. 468/2005. The appUcation is wifhout any subs Consequentfy, M.(Cr.)P. 460/2007 stand disposed of. tance aad fhe same is disinissed. No. 301/2007 and I.A. No. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge -»- p; (^y^) antF