Q^ ^- ^^y^i s= ^r'^g^&sr? wfi^LE. IN THE HIGH COURT OF .IUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH W.P. fCivil) N0. ^19-9 OF 2006 PETITIONER Appellant Plaintiff ..' J;'(/0.-'--*' ... ^> "..-•" ..<^°' ^ <^'^ "/^' y^ RESPONDENTS Respondents Defendants Paras Ram Chandrakar, aged about 41 years, S/o. Late Shri Guha Ram Chandrakar, R/o. Village Sikora, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg, Chhattisgarh \\ v^ VERSUS 1. Hari Om Chandrakar, aged •' about 15 years, 2. Naveen Chandrakar, aged /'' about 13 years, Respondents No.l & 2 both are minor, through their Father/Guardian- Mithu Lal Chandrakar, R/o. Village- Sikora, Tahsil Gunderhi, District Durg, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ® XI-HC-78 *TWdl sh*<l<h 3^'qraRPI', SrfUTire, (alcll^y .^; X.l^ffl.^/- '••-^f 3TT^?r iRra? (^qfgg^r) 311^1 ^iTf^TRi (IStT3n^Tsbl[°h s^iTWflfga'sn^T ttii'Mfci'ifl'f '•iiH<iTfftec3'<Ri«;i< ^ari^iTsn^r 2-1-2007 aqbinst Mr. Ratnesh A9rawol, counse^l Heard. By this writ petition under the petitioner has chailenged 1090! ty 31-8-2006 passed by the 10th Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.8/20pi Jud9e dismissed the appeal fiied ag|ain by the 5th Civil Judge, Class-II, bi|r learned trial Court rejected the QJ under Order 39 Rules 1 <& 2 of the 4. The cose of the petitioner) respondents No.l & 2 are real brot^ whole property was partitioned undi 1977 in which all the three were g again a family property was disti property was partitioned in three s| death of 6uhar'am the property whi^ partitioned in two shares among thi and Mithulal, father of respondenl executed in favour of sons of Miti trial Court rejected the appiicatioi intia!ly the properties were partiti possession of his share and on 2-8] for the petitioner. trticle 227 of ths Constitution of India, ond cor-rectness of the order dated litiona! District Jud9e, Durg in 15, whereby learned Additional District the order dated 25-7-2005 passed |rg in Civit Su't No.34-A/2004, whereby iplication filed by the petitioner herein [.P.C. is that the petitioner and father of lers and their father was ©uhar-am. The r the order of the Tehsildor in the year- |ven equoi share. However, thereafter, libuted in the year 1992 wherein the hares and it was decided that after the |h came to the share of Suhar-am shall be two brothers i.e. the petitioner here'm |s No.l & 2 herein, thsrefore, the Will ulal is contratry to the partition. The of the petitioner on the ground thot 'bned on 7-1-1977, Suharam was under 1.1999 ©uharammade a registered Will P.T.O. XI-HC-78 i6T!N^> tiBD^rainN s- g%T3IT2I7?T2T, STf^TTS, [Sfi'IIMy . to.T>.[Q tmMisn*iicn ^ 200^ 311^1 W* ('i'=<t3s"<.]sf) ^RdWH^fSn^T - 2- wrfg^iwRfrffte^ <Rt^K ^stRpTsn^T in favour- of the defendants, theref4rs, the plaintiff has not been able to make out a prima facie case for" grant of ^emporary injunction. On the same 9round, the appeal filed by the petitioner Ijierein has been dismissed by the iearned Additionat District Jud9e vide his or{ler dated 31s Au9ust, 2006. It 13 admitted position that •flhe property wos porittioned between the petitioner hsre'm, his brother AAithu| Suharam, father of the petitioner residing with Mithulal, father of bequeathed his share by a registere this, the petitioner failed to mak^ al - father of the respondents herein and herein, in three shares. ©uharam was respondents No.l <& 2 herein and he i Will dated 2"" August, 1999. In view of out a pr-ima facie cose for grant of temporary injunction. This Cour-t can interefere udder Article 227 of the Constitution of "When the subordinbte Court has assumed a jursidiction which it d4es not have or has failed to exercise a jursidictior^ which it does have or the jursidiction thou9h avai|able is being exercised by the Court jn a manner not p|ermitted by law and failure of justice or grave injust'^e has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step i|i to exercise jts supepivsory jursidiction. .............. No^ne is available to corpect mere errors of fact or o| requir'ements are sotisf F low unless the following ied: (i) the error is manifest -n> • P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *11*1MI Sh*1ich 3:5T •^iqirt'i), BTfttl'IS, Isjdiyy ^u.^.^ 200^, 3Tr^?T<4ach (licli^<s<<i,!iT) R-<i+ iSlT^TgiW ShWfi Soma STaraTfffefsn^r er-rdr and apparent on the when it is based on cl< of the pr'ovisions of gross failure of justj patent error is an can be perceived or any iengthy or compli| process of reasoning^ r-easonably possibie chosen to take one vli gross or patent.' face of the proceedings such as l^ar- ignorance or utter disregard |aw, and (ii) a grave injustice or jce has occasioned thereby. A which is seif-evident, i.e., which dejnonstrQted without involving into :ated araument or a long drawn Where two inferences are the subordinate Court has iew the error cannot be called dnd Perusal of the impu9ned ord) Court shows that the trial Court as perverse order contrary to the been able to mcke out a case for intl of the Constitution of India. The hereby dismissed, at the admission Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.491 °tii<iF?t<fl-i 4i*iMTffte^l'<.Ri'wi< ^isrf^Tsn^T i^r and olso the order passed by the trial |«ellas the appellate Court has not passed and therefore, the petitioner has not t^rference by this Court under Article 227 petition is liabte to be dismissed and it is dfage itself. ''1/2006 stands disposed of., Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice redord wrlit ^ P.T.O.