^^y^^ ^ pr^i^i^ fez^ Wrif Petition"' "No. ^v ^of 2009 -^/l/s Paras Vanaspati.Pvt. Ltd. A company registered under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1 956 Having its Registered Office at 21 / 360, Ganj Para Raipur Chhattisgarh-492001 »fif.- ^HSJ^ sfeEerf "—-•/3-v\(-.t; Jo-i"p_^- 2. Chhaftisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T&D) Cooperative Federation Limifed, having ifs registered Office at A-25, VIP Estate, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), Through its Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T&D) Cooperative Federation Limited, District Union, Upperghat, Jaspur Nagar Unit No. 6, Jaspur Nagar, Chhattisgarh Through its Managing Director The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Principal Secrefary, Department of Foresf, DKS, Bhawan Mantralava, Raipur (C.G. in The Matter Of:- ; «-)r-^r ^-s^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bech: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227t No.7069/2009 Petitioner Respondents Versus M/s. Paras Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd. Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T&D) Cooperative Federation Limited and others. Shri Ankit ^nghal, counsel for the pet'rtioner. Shri Sumit Verma, Panel Lawyer for respondent No-3/State. Writ Petition under Articte 227 ofthe Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (06.01.2010) Heard on I.A, No.1 for taking additlonal documents on record. (2) I A. No.1 is allowed and aclditional documents are taken on record. (3) Heard on admission. (4) The present petitioner has preferred a sutt on 28.t0.20(% in the Court of Distrtot Judge, Jashpur seeking relief for declaration wtth termination of purchase agreement dated 21 .( 2009 by the plaintiffe and nrtice dated 14.08.2CW are valid and to dirwt defendant No.2 to refund the security d^iosit of Rs.88,88,000/- along wi > interest @ 16% per annum. The plaintiffe have also moved an appljcation under sub-Section (2) of Section 80 of C.P.C. seeking leave of the Ccwrt for filing the plaint without servii^ any nottee as required by sub-s«;tion (1) of Section 80 of the C.P.C. (5) By the impugned order dated 12.11.2009, the learned Court below has rejected the plaintiffe' applteations under sub-section (2)oT Section 80 of the C.P.C. on the ground that the present is nd: a matter where acute urgency is present. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the application for temporary injunction was moved and In the event forfeiting of the security deposit .•^i^ly ;%^, takes place during the period of two months, he shall suffer irreparabte loss, therefore, plaintiff should have been allowed to file the suit vrithout notice required under Section 80 (1) of the C.P.C. In the opinion of ttiis Court, the present is nd a case where jurisdiction under Article 227 should be exercised. The plaint itself was fited on 28.10.2009. Two months have already expired thereafter. In the course of hearirg, leamed counsel for the petitioner has infonned the Court that nottee under Section 80(1) of C.P.C. has already been issued tothe proposed defendant on 2).11.2009. Barely 14 days are remaining before the expiry of the period of two months. For thls reason atso there is no case for interference with the impigned order passed by ttie leamed Court below. The writ petition flted under Articte 227 of the Constitutton Tails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stege itself. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge s:>sra