IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(underArticle227)No. Cjl‘u /2009 PETITIONER Defendant no.1 Purushottam Sampariya, S/O. Phoolchand Smapariya, Aged about 45 years, Owner Firm Fair Deal, Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1] K ishanchand Gwalani, S/o. PLAINTIFF Bhagwandas Gwalani, Aged about 52 years, Manager, Bagai Golden Transport Company (Proprietor Bombay Goods Transport Company), In front of Samlaya Mandir, Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur District Surguja (CG) 2 Jawahar Sampariya, S/o. late Plioolcliand Sampariya, Aged about 60 years, R/o. Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Surguia (CG) . . .. (Respan(lent/(lefemlant no.2) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / / \ §-§5GH £GLER? Q? £HHATTISGARH A? BILASPUR ’ble shn Justice Prashant Kumar Mnshra $imgie 3ench: Hon Writ Petitian £22.?) No.914 a? 200% .Purushottam Sampariya P$titianer VerSUS Resgondentg Kishanchand Gwaiani and anoiher Preswui Shn Maria} Paranjpe coumei for me petitione. $hr A N Bhakta counsel for respondent No 1 brm \l k Pandey, coun$el for respondent V02 N" Writ Peiition under Article 227 of the Ca stitution of :ndia QRDER (Passed on 2;} February 2010) Th9 petmonnr harem is aggrieved by the order dated 24-1 2009 {Annexure P4} passed by tha appenate Court in an appea! under Order 43 Ruie 1(r) of ihe Codo of CivH Procedure, 1908 (henceforth ‘rhe Code, 1908’) fried by the plaintifflrespondent No.1 to assail rho order passed by the Trial Court on 14-3 7008 rejectmg an apphcatzon of ’rhe orarr‘rrff/rosoondent No 1 under Qrder 39 Ruleg f and 9 read rr'th $eorwns 91 3nd 15f of the Code, 1908 for issuance of temporary §njunot§on againot the petitionerldefendant No.1 from making reoovery of the award amount against him. ’2 Brief recto grvrng rise to the oresent controversy between the parties are that defendant Moi/the present oetrtroner moved an / eppiroetron under Seeuon i2 of the Consumer Prote tren Aet f0 seeking eompeneatierr 9f Re.?2‘000.l— tewarde the value 9f the eieetrio x geysers, which were stolen when the said geysers were entrusted to the plaintiff/respondent N0.1 in transpartation. The District Consumer Ferum, vide order dated 9-3—1999 (Annexure P—5), allowed the appiicetien and passed an award fer Re.70,730l-:. The said erder wee affirmed in aepeet by the State Censumer Disputes Redressal aommissien yide its order dated 24-5—2Q00 (Annexure P~6) and thereafter by the National Consumer Disputes Redressel Commission, New Delhi vide its erder dated 22—3—2007 (Annexure P—7). 3. The plaintifffrespondent No.1, thereafter, preferred the present suit (Civil 3uit No.15—A/2GD8) on 24—1—2008 for a declaration to the effect that defendant Noilthe petitioner is not entitled to recover the award amount, which he has obtained by an tllegai and fraudulent manner. The plaintiffelso preferred an application for grant of temperary injunction. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court Vide order dated 14-3-2008 {Annexure P~4). 4. Order dated 14-3~2008 (Annexure P—4) passed by the trialCourt was subiected to appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code, 1908. The appellate 0&rt,‘ “by athe > impugned order dated 24-1‘2G09 (Annexure Pd), has remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh deciston after allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Qode, tQOS. / 5. Learned counsel for the defendant Not/petitioner submits that the learned appellate Court has passed an illegal and improper order oy remanding the matter after mechanically allowing the application of me :sEaintiffi’respandent N411 undar Grder 41 Ruk 27 of the Qade, 1908. 6. warned counsel appaaring for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 a3 wel! as fm defendant No.2/tesp9ndent No.2 supported the impugngd order passed by tha Caur‘t hetow and prayed that the instant Writ pattion be diSmisged. 1. 0n §3ru3at hf the impugned arder passed by the appellate Ceurt, §t weuld appear that the appettate Ceurt has dealt with the nature at decuments eeught t9 be lntreduced by the plaietlff/reepondent No.1 as well ee by defendent Ne.1fthe eetitioner himself in their respective epplieations under Order 41 Rule 27 0f the Code, 1908. Theugh the appellate Ceurt hae mt stated ee to which particular clause cf sub—rule (t) of Rule 2? ef Order 41 of the Code, 1908 is applicable yet it appears that the appellate Court hae applied its mind and has found that the documents have a bearing on the issue/contreverey raised in appeal and since the same has not been considered .by the trial Court, the appellate Sourt has thought it proper to remit the matter to the trial Court for freeh decision. 3. in t tthe opinton of this Court, mere admission of some document on record by the Court would not prejudice the petitioner so as to atttact jurisdiotion under Article 227 of the Constitution of indie. lt is i settteol iaw that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of itndia is to be exereised sparingly and‘that it must be restricted to oaees iof grave dereliotion. of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental V l prinoiptee of law end justice, where grave injustice would be dene l ”4’. umess the High Court interfered (See a.M.3aneiji vs. RRMukhaiiee 3mg asheys, AER $53 $6 58 Paragraph 5). In the present case, both the parties womd get sufficient apportunity in the trial Court to plead E‘heir raspective cases on the application of the piaintiff/respendent NM Lmdei’ Gider 39 Ruie$ 1 and 2 9f the Code, 1908, which ehaii be deeided by the Court on its awn merits. 9. This court does not find any such error in the impugned order warranting exerciee of juriediction under Artiste 227 of the Sometitutioh / ef indie. The writ petition feiie and is hereby dismissed. 3di- I/‘ K I, Prasham Kumar Mishra Judge Genet /