$§§£§LE EENm IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 227 No. 537% bF 2010 Laxmi NarayaIIE Singh Aged about 36 years, S/o Shri Onkarnath Singh R/o Pachpedi‘ Naka, Raipur (C.G.) pETITIONER": (maintm) 1 Vetsus 1 I’— RESPOND’ENTS : 1) Budharu Sam S/o Latel Sahu 2) V Bhaddu Sahu S/o Latel Sahu. 3) Panchu Sahu S/o Latel Sahu 4) . Chowaram S/o Latel Sahu 5) Aghnuram S/o Ramsingh Sahu Smt. Pataiya Wd/o Ram Singh 7) Sita Bai d/o Ram Singh Gita Bai d/o*“Ram Singh 9) Khujji Bai d/o Ram Singh W ¢ I 1Tiha111 S/o Nammu 1 1) Mayaram S/o Nammu 12) Dayaram S/o Nammu 13) Smt. Kuwan'a D/o Nammu 14) Smt. Savitri D/o Nammu 15) Smt. Rani D/o Nanimu 16) Dukalabai wd/o Nammu A11‘ R/o Village Lalpur, Tahsil 8L Distrigt Raipur(C.G.) ' 17) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) ' 18} Deputy Registrar, Registrar Office, Raipur(C.G.) 19) ‘Sandip Agrawal S/o \C.L. AgraWal R/pgEwiyapma, Raipui“ (C.G.) (Defendants) Q§W \(U HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shl'i Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 5978/2010 PETITIONER Laxmi Narayan Singh Versus Budharu Sahu and others RESPONDENTS Agwarance: hri S.S. Rajput, counsel for the petitiener. Shri RR. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State. S VVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CGNSTITUTIO OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (20.10.2010) Heard. {2) The trial court has rejected plaintifs application under Order 1 R1116 10 of CPC, because the application filed in February 2007 was listed on several occasions for hearing anti inspite of repeated opportunity to the plaintiff to pay process fee for notice to the party proposed to be impleaded, the plaintiff failed to pay process fee for more than three years. (3) In the opinioo of this court, the trial court has not committed any \ illegality nor has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction to reject the application for non payment of process fee. Present is not a case warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. (4) The instant petition thus fails andfits hereby dismissed. SdJ— ‘ Prashant Kumar Mushra Judge I N