^—•1-'c IN THE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A,N0 • ) cb/^ /2P03 iON. s ^Smt» Sarla Maheshwari i-APPLICANT/DEFENDANT ^ W/o Late NandKishor MaheshwqriT Aged about 35 years^ R/o 45^ Vikas Nagar^Lakholi^ Raj nandgaon rTeh•&Di stric t Rajnandgaoa (CG) • ...^' \-^'^\ ^s^: ^-.^'^•-"' ..^•^' ?"s:*-- VERSUS RESPQNDENT Applieant/Plaintiff : Smt» Godavari Devi W^p I.icite $atyax^arayan lesHwari *- - Aged abput 66 years^ fi/o Ganj Line^ Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & Distt^Rajnandgaoii (CG) APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE-1WOF_TH2 CODE_QF_CiyiL .PROCEDURE F XI-HC-22 3TT^f^T 'f^TW^n^T ^+iich yf^a h ^^ 1^FTRPT, 'S^FIS, fa<n(^y ^..te:.A..^.....^7^3 WWIT^R?^ •^<^' ^T^T ^^TT^R ^fea appeUmit^respondenf f51ed grsjidson Prateek ajict his prop for ioLteiiiii os^ier mider Order Act, 1890 (hencefordr •ofl <=bl<-i(<rt<fll 'HFT^t''? f^st iF^t^K ^^f^P?3TT^r - •:.'., ^.. Shri P, Diwakar, Senior coiinsel for appellant, Shri B. P, Sharma, couD4 forrcspoDdeirt, ; '- • ..- . -. Heard on admission F&r the ^relfarc of mipDr of his person and psuperty^ fh^ aa appUcatiot^ duiuig peu(|leiicy of the appUcation of the Advocate with Shri A, Majumdar, el with Ku, Madhu Modi, counsel 3ii M.(C).P. No. 394/2003. |Prateek by appoiiitiiig a appellaat being his mofher flled appllcation claimiBg heiaelf fo be the person entitled for app.oi(itment of guaidiaii ofher ninior ^rfy, She also fUed an application |39 Rule 1 & 2 read wifh Section 151of fhe C.P.C., and rcad w|ifh Section 12. of the Guardimi & fflie Acf?], The appHcatioii was the mnior Smt Sarla opposed by mother Maliesliwari^appellant, LearBed Court bek?w oflslr liearing bQth fhe partjes passed fhe iiiipiigned order partly 'wii^i- the consent of the parties and -.partfy-afer ;diie o] K, Leai'ned coiinsel for app^llanf conteDded tiiat leamed trial Court erred ia fhe iDcker. Per contra, learried coij F fhe material available on record. ^.ppe?laiit froin operafmg her own fbr rcspondent opposed and c^) XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T 'f^TW'S^T S^^W ^fe^T ( ^. i, kvr ^ y -S^ ^FH^F?, -^iteFTS, t^n^ 3nt^r "qx^ W8°?^^^i^ *^^^^^^^^^ ^ 200 •^^ST' 371^1 ^RiT^R'Hfi^ confended fhat the locker is iiii mmor^ therefore^ the order doe{ Chapter II of the Act co| appQuitHient of guardiaa of fl^ has been empowered under S^ ordei's for protection of pers| order passed by flie Court b< property of miaor faUs within The onler passed und| appeaJable imder Section 47 is not maJiitaiiiable, The is ^ accorimgty M.(C).P. No. 394/2^ I^amed counsel for fN certified copy of the impugn^i petition to whfch leam^d" objectiDH, Considered, Certified! retumed to him on substttutto? flfteen days.- I.A. No. 929/2006 stands +l^fd^-< •WT^ •? fe^ <^^!< ^ 'srf^TT 3T?^T the pint ofappellaat not call for any iBterference. itemplates a coznplete scheme for s minor his proper^^ Court 'tion 12 ofthe Act to pass iriteriiii on mid pro^erty, The impugned klow for iiiterim protection of the ^ection 12 ofthe Act 3tr Section 12 of fhe Act is nat ^>f fhe Act, therefore, tlie instajit beiiig not majiitajjiable aiid )03 stsoids dis^x>sed of appeUajit to retuni fhe order arinexed along with fhe loiinsel for respbiident has no copy of fhe mipugiied oider be by photocopy of fhe wifhin disposed of Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge [Tft^ ^n^^