^*-;^6,^ r IN THOE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.f227)No. &U3\ /2009 PETITIONER BECREE-HOLDBR ••-^ X? RESPONDENTS JUDGEMENT-DEBTORS •^ / Samual Minj, aged about 62 years, S/o LateKelaMmj, R/o Torwa, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS / 1. Radhe, aged about52 years, S/o Late Ihadu Satnami, /l. Mil^a Bai^ aged about 72 years, Wd/o Jhadu Satoiami, ^3. Dudhia Bai, aged about 45 years, D/o LateJhadu Sataami, ^4. Chandrika Bai,aged about 42years, D/o Late Jhadu Satoami, ^5. Amrika Bai, aged about 41 years, D/o Late Jhadu Satnami, All R/oVUlageKisanParsada, TahsU Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETtTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF DMDIA -^ -F -HG—78 sn^iv h-v.* 'wi an^T g^iN; M< 3^1 ^wwi, ytl1'y<is, fsKni'yy ^^^^^^....{^3.^ Sf^[ 'qiR? (lic<fj«l<Ei) ^ S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K 07.11.2009 Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Acpvocate for petitioner. Heard on admission. The instant petition is d| 24.06.2009 passed by First C| execution case No. 15-A/07, application filed bythe petitionei) was allowed and attachment orc|er wasdirected. Shri Agrawal, learned coi|nsel submits that the executing cour^ 1 attachment of property warrant which is without jurisdiction and| As per provisions CPC, the executing court, in its| order of property or order of d| executing court in its discref attachment of property of jud^ arrest warrant at first instanct' perverse and does not call for irj' +dld41-1 'intRff •?f^S <r«!it<;i< •^sffinsifer Aaarwal rected against the order dated |vll Judge, Class II, Bilaspur in whereby and whereunder the under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC of judgment debtor's property appearing for the petitioner has passed the order by issuing nstead of issuing arrest warrant; bad in law. Gontai(ied in Order 21 Rule 32 (1) of Idiscretion, can issue attachment l^tention in the civil prison. The ion has passed the order of jud^ment debtor instead of issuing }e, which is neither illegal nor tterference of this court. ^rr wtsn^srwiw Sahu 3 3^ ^(I^lRTq, ®T)I-H'I%,(sjcliyi^; .1^.. 3(I^!i 'V^S (>icl?3s<yl) ¥(<IIW^fe3lAw -2i- It is well settled principle of its supervisory jurisdiction Const'rtution of India, should refraji order passed by the Court belov)/ perversity, illegality, Irregularity o| on the Tace ofthe record, which is The petitlon has no merit| dismissed at admission state. 't>i<ii<n«ili'qmaf ^ TCIA '(^R?R ^stRiHan^i oli law that this Court, in exercise under Article 227 of the |n itself from interfering with the /, except in such cases where jurisdictional error is writ large not in the present case. and the same is accordingly Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge ° -s^ 5:-Ri^T^'nTHxsn^q':T3-lhTlt^—FS/95—11/2008—1.00-000.- .