c\v^' THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGASH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. OF 2003 .i«s ^ PETITIONERS : 1. LaxmiramDas Wife ofNunaicharanaDas, Aged 48 years, R/o. Darogapara, ChopdagaU, Raigarh(C.G.) ,-r^;^ ..•'^'>-voy -,b.<'S^* 3;'^*1' 0 w^ .^' ..^** :^aT/-' •^^•s^' .-'^^•^ •\^^--" VERSUS Churulal Das S/o. Pumachandra Das, Aged about39 years, R/o. Darogapara, Chopdagali RaigEu-h (C.G.) \^'^' .^%' i.^l:l i •" •y^ • ^ RESPONDENTS : 1. State Bank of India, Through Branch Manager, Main Branch, Gandlu Ganj Raigarh(C.G.) 2. M/s. Gupta Brotherg Through Proprietor Baldeo Prasad ^y' Son ofBaijnath Gupta, R/o. near Old Hatri, Raigarh(C.G.) 3. Baldeo Prasad Gupta Son ofBaijnath Gupta, R/o. Baiuyapara, Raigarh(C.G.) ^a?'\ s--^^ "->\°s A^w cS^y <-) \ ^y>; ,'<-,. ^ ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE2B»227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i&ttUI °^T ~5^ •^TRRTq, S'gtWlS, i°«-)iy'T,< ^^•^^^^ ^-(^..~. ^'s^J.^S^j aTi^CiS; SW; s^s 5'nw^c?a sii^l-^giwafOT '^iN?Pft;T 'WRff ^ fS^ tRTC?TC ^•arfimsn^t f»mmM... Ri 12,J,1,; 03 tbc District pennitt^ng Ms. Sxmita <Jain, counsel for The petitio&ers havc preferT^d |227 of Constitution of India bcing 123.08.2003 passed by •2nd Addition|al Iwhich tttc learacd Additional lappUcation of thc petitioner no. 1 ICode of Civfl Procedure for Bier slatement on comnusston on IParda-Nasheeu lady may be exemp^ p3Urt to give her statement and |i^h btood pressure, therefore, sbe pourt and give her statement ^B0»i Perusal of the said ordcr fay respondent no. l-State Baak of ^ 3 aad also fhe pctitioncrs for ^dvanced to respondent ao.2 & ^uarantors in fhat k>an on bchalf o|f ^uit was decreedex-parte and aijj. ^ehatf of fhe petitioners for setting| {the grottad that suminons were not ] ^ased on ihe forged s^natures ofth^ fead retum stateinent was filed and pie petitioner was requuwl to give ^)f the petitioner no. 1 came &r gwin]g ^ppUcation under Oider 26 Rule pctitioners. this petition under Article l^grieved by the order dated District Judge, Raigarh by Judge has iBJected the under Order 26 Rute l of the petitioner IK>. 1 to give Ithe grouiul ffaat she being a (ed fiom appearing before thc {?ra>ver, she is sufifering fiom (s uiaabte to appear before fhe applsara fhat some suit was ffled I]adia against respandcnt no,2 r^coveiy of a toan which was P and the petitiDnera stood respoadent no.2 & 3. That applicatioa was moved oa |aside fhe ex-parte decree on [served on fhe pe-tittMiers and petitk)Ders the Vakalatnama ]in support of that appUcation h|er steteinent. When the tum her statement fhe aforesaid 1 was fited for gctting tiie f-VS^, ~yss '^H\v\<-l, ^ire7is, i«(wiyy SWRI^I iS-ilT, SV^V shli+^f?^ ^ <°1 0"Ia SIR^IWnWHf^T tbe ofa^iy petitfoner uo. 1 examined by and exeinptmg the petitioner) Court to give her statenaeat I havc tieard leamed perused the impugaed order b^ the applicatfon of the petitio|i support of tfae appUcation oid^ filed aad no other aGMavit substaatiate fhe stateinent of uasheeu lady. As aSeT the amendmebt revision under Section 115 te this order the petitioner has of Constitution of India. As p^; in thc case of Surya Devi reported in JT 2003 (6) SC 4^ Constitutk>n of India can mti^i-l court has assumed a jurisdietjio: failed to exercise a jurisdictio^i though available is being law and failure ofjusticc or Court niay step iato exercise it^ Perusal of thc unpi^n^d Addituinal District Judge has ]j>a it canaot be said that the exerciscd the jiirisdiction whic^i exerdised gr^ve lcailaed ^l<ifd<i'R 'iWH?Jf 4 fslzt <Rif^l<. ^? aiPdtt •3n*?t Comnussioncr at her residencc no.l tmm- appearmg before the counsel for the petitioneis and which the Trial Court baa Bqected aer no.l on 4he ground ffaat in fhe affidavit of thc petiticaier was person bas been fited ia order to the petitioner titiat sfae is a paida- ia<)ved RAi intifcrfere of Code of Civfl Ptocedure a t»anedaad no rCTisioa lies against this pctition under Articte 227 jr law laid down by fhe Apex Court ^a V. Ram Chander Rai & otfaera ^5 this Court undcr Articte 227 of oah when the subordiaate tjion which it does not have or has wtuch it has or the jurisdk'aon m a manner not permitted by iajustice has residted, fhe Hi^i supemsoiy Jurisdiction. ^d order shows that tfae tearacd iwssed fhe erder with reasons and Additional District Judge has is not available to fhe trial Court [^^fr-' XE-HC-22 -Svf -^IPiRPT, ^rftWTS, l^iriiMy 3°s7s] o;,. 3^?[qi! fewsn^i %t]R?'gfOT K^mw 'as^ SIR^I'reirwafro qwfepfrl tWRif'9 fest •rf^R 'SIT siptpi sn^r or on account ofpassing this injustice has occ^ioned, ai^uments of teamed coiiascl| order of fhe trial Court dismissed and it fa hereby Cousequentfy, M.W^ No.9118/2003 also stands (]>rder some failure ofjustice or grave theijefore, I do aot find auy force in the 1 fbr petttfoners to nttterferc with the There]fore, fhe writ petition is liabfc to be dKAussed. dtelooscd .P.No.2813/2003 of. p <»<'» u ^- ^ 1