-< ,.‘. , PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Decree Holder No.2 glegd heirs of deceased decree wig—I’M) 1. Basanf Kumar Vadav, son of Shri Jagmdhan Prasad Vaduv, aged abouT 51 years, resident of Purani Bayri, Kunkuri, Tehsii Kunkuri, Disfr‘icf Jashpur‘ (CG) .Ushu Devi, wdow i Ashok Yadav, aged abouT 44 year's. . Kumari Sunoina Vadav, .Lokesh Kumar Vadav, son of LaTe Ashok Yadav, aged abouT 18 years. . Kumari $onom Yadav, daugh’rer of La’re Ashok Yadav, aged abom‘ 16 year's. 6. Aiok Vadav, son of Lafe Ashok of Late daugh’rer of Late Ashok Vadav, aged aboui 19 year‘s‘ sk " ’ r rgwrm A r ; LN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT B’IL’AsP‘Uk WRIT PETITION (227) NO. §M§§ OF 2010 Rakesh Kumar Yadav, son of La’re Ramdev Vad'av, aged abou’r 4O years, residenf of Kunkuri, Tehsil Kunkuri, Distric’r Jashpur (CG) (Ramdev Vadav, who was defendan’r No‘Z expired and has nof been made parfy although party in civil suiT) M/x f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR i Rakesh Kumar Yadav : asan Kumar Yadav & others RESPONDENTS Bt (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF TIE CONSTITUTION OF INDL - A) ' : Shri Kshitiz Sharma, Advoat for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh hrivastaa, dvocate fo respdt No.1to7. Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05.04201 l) a on nd f I The instnt petiti, tiled uer Article 227 of Constitution o ndia call in question the leglity and propriety f order dated s a o 09.9.2010, passed by the Civil Jdge Class II, unkun‘, Distt. 0 u K Jaspur, in execution ease No. 196-A/92, whereby petitioner’s h = application filed under Section 47 read with Section 151 of CPC was rejected. Brief facts ofthe case ar : deased Ashok Yadav, rpondent No.1 e ce es and one Jagmohan Yadav fil a suit or viction of suit property ed f e against the father and brother of petioner. Suit was registered as e ti ivil Suit No. 196-A/92. Vide judgment and decreed dated , 25.01.1996 suit was decreed in plaintiff‘s favour. Above judgment and decree attained finality. In execution, petitioner’s father and brother appeai‘ed in the year 2007 without raising any objection. Writ Petition (227) No. 5458 of2010 PETITIONER VERSUS (SB: Honble Mr. N.K. Agarwpl, J.) Present ce Sv A r onen d Amt death of his father, petitioner preferred an applican'on under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC as his legal representative. The same was dismissed. Petitioner’s objection under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC was also dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2008 (Annexure R/7) and above order also attained dnality. Petitioner’s application filed under Section 47 read with Section 151 of CPC was also dismissed by the executing court vide order dated 05.03.2010. Petitioner was permittedby this court on 02.07.2010 to withdraw WP (227) No. 857/09 (Annexure P/4) with liberty to file hesh objections under the . provisions of CPC before the executing court. Thereafter, petitioner preferred application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of CPC - and Article 141 of Constitution of India for setting aside exparte judgment and decree dated 25.01.1996. The trial court vide order impugned (Annexure P/l) dismissed the said application. Hence this l petition. 3. I have heard the counse appearing for the parties and perused the l order impugned. 4. Fresh objection raised by the petitioner is, Shri LK Singh, Advocate, appeared in execution case on behalf of decree holder, whereas he appeared in the trial on behalf ofjudgment debtor and the conduct of present 'Advocate on behalf of decree holder is also doubtful. The above question relates to alleged misconduct of the Advocate for which the petitioner is free to make complaint before the State Bar Council. » ‘ . In the instant case it appears the original defendants have not raised. . any objection that the judgment and decree is obtained by playing fraud. Petitioner, who is appearing as legal representative of deceased father, applied for setting aside exparte decree which was dismissed, objection raised under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPCI was also dismissed, no appeal was filed, objection under Section 47 read “" with Section 151 of CPC taken earlier was also dismissed, and therefore, in theeonsidered opinion of this court, the application preferred by the petitioner’has rightly been dismissed by the trial court and‘I do not hnd any scope of interference under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. 6. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity‘or jurisdictional error isgwrit large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. The petition has no merit and the same is accofdingly dismissed. No sw. ‘5, N.K.Agarwai I ’ ' Judge L‘jerg order asto costs.