••'"••'WctyS'.iSW^ w^ "'o' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONTEMPT PETITION No. 83 of 2006 PETITIONERS ^*.. ,ly 1. Itwaru, aged about 58 years (died) s/o Budga l(a) Java Bai, aged about 50 years, widow of Itwaru l(b) Rama, aged about 35 years, s/o Itwaru l(c) Ramji, aged about 30 years, s/o Itwaru l(d) Rara Prasad, aged about 28 years, s/o Itwaru l(e) Laxmi Prasad, aged about 24 years, s/o Itwaru l(f) Rakesh, aged about 20 years, s/o Itwaru 2. Ramlal, aged about- 5:2 years (Died), s/o Budga 2(a) Darasmati, aged about 50 years, widow of Ramlal Bahar 2(b) Hari Prasad, aged about 42 years, s/o Ramlal 2(c) Shiv Prasad, aged about 32 years, s/o Ramlal 2(d) Dev Prasad, aged about 26 years, s/o Ramlal 2(e) Santosh, aged about 23 years, s/o Ramlal 3. Shyam Lal, (Died), s/o Budga 3(a) Soni Bai, aged about 42 years, widow of Shyam Lal. 3(b) Goutam, aged about 38 years, s/o Shyam Lal 3(c) Soutam, aged about 36 years, s/o Shyam Lal 3(d) Shankar, aged about 34 years, s/o Shyam Lal 3(e) Mahadev, aged about 32 years, s/o Shyam Lal 3(f) Gita Bai, aged about 20 years, D/o Shyain Lal, 4. Ramadhar, s/o Budga, No.l to 4 are residents of Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). 5. Chaituram, aged about 50 years, s/o Dhaniram, R/o village Karnod Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G). RESPONDENT 'M Contemut Petition No. 83 of2006 6. Mahesh, aged about 60 years, (Died) s/o Thethla 6(a) Navagadheen, aged 'about 60 years, widow of Mahesh Kahar, 6(b) Mohan, aged about 42 years, s/o Mahesh, No.6 (a) and (b) are residents of village Karnod, Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. . Versus Raj Kumar, aged about 19 years, s/o Madhoprasad Kesharwani, occupation Business, R/o Baniyapara, Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 'y '*-' Appearance: Miss Purnima Singh, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Ratan Pusty, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER t05.il.20091 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Miss Purnima Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the averments made in para 7 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, which states about the fact that the Contractor has pulled down the construction made beyond the permission granted by this Court and the construcdon which has been. pulled down was undertaken on bona-fide mistake, seeks perraission to withdraw this pedtion with a liberty to file another petition, if such an exigency arises in future. Permission granted. Accordingly, Confempt Petition No.83/2006 is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioners. f -~- ~- ~ SunU Kumar Sinha Judge Rao