jr^ ^'^^, '"/ •S-j jndiBAi[S9unqg 9§BHIiAo/^[ $ %> 17 -ON •sa'a sjesX i$ inoqs psg^ jBAfe^ uiBmeqpog o/§vcmsa/ivQ •$ SJB9X t?$ ^noqB psge reAfe-a mBJueqpog o/s urempuBj\[ '^ " ('O'D) vfrSsss piflsiQ mdfejns nsipi ys-d jndpuiAOQ 8§BiniAo/yr SJB9X \ $ ^noq^ ps§EB3[IUBJ 5[E^qAiqs o/s ^d^Bip{3-£ • (•0-3) Bfn§jBSpuqsiQ 'mdfems Iisqei iliuxiTqr-s-J vy^sv^ 33i3\\]A. o/y sssaA QF yiocp psge jBAfe^ res^uiB'3 O/AY OUBI[UBS '3 • (•o-3) ^fngres pijqsiQ 'mdfemg nsipj^ BqpireqjE5[B]/^ 3§BiiiiA o/y SJB9X 6/, inoqe psge mMref 9^1 o/^ reg BXmnure^ • ^ -: s^uBpuajaQ/ s^aapuoasa^ S H SU 3A ^1^ Ev' H1 .y ^,-?" -<T-•<- ^...' ..^"1 ^ff^ ^" " ('O'O) Bfngres puisiQ 'mdfems Iisqej^ jnctiBAqssunqg ^ BqpueqjB3[B^[ 9§BiniAo/y fly ;SJB9X l7/, inoq^ p9§B.reAfe^ ^Seqg 3V3\ °/A\. BXissfe-g @ ^Xiuos-ims •$ sj^sX i$ ^noq^ p9§BreAfe^i VZ'SV^Q 3V3] 0/Q PUISBQ -^UTS •^ SJB9X 6£:nOqB p9§EJBAfe^[ ^geqg sys] o/s XB(IA@ IBlfug •£ 'sresX £^7^noqB p9§B jEAfe'3 §Bqg3^e\ o/§{BXBpure^ '3 'sjesA ^p ^noqB p9§^ jBAfe^ ^g^qg Q^B\ o/§iBipoj^ •t -: sjjpureu/sjauopi^j •UOZ/ •ONZ.Zrj'AY %SO& •(•o'o)^njsv^a iv HHVOSUIVHHD so IHI103 H9IH ^^a<NOH AO 1^1103 3H1 N1 ^ rS'-^ fft, Ramanujnagar Tahsil Surajpur District Sarguja (C.G.) . 6. State of C.G., Through Collector Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTIUTUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRITAVMTS /AND /OR /OTHER APPROPRIATE ,DIRECTION /DmECTIONS AND /OR.OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/ORDERS. B.:i .1 '^ SSSKS"? . . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 3038 of 2011 PETITIONERS Motilal & others. Versus RESPONDENTS Ramuniya Bai and others. WR1T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Mr. Suresh Pandey, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Dubey, P L for the State/respondent No. 6. ORAL ORDER (16.06.2011) Heard on admission. 1; Instant petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 13.5.2011 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Surajpur, Sarguja in Civil Suit No.SO-A/2008 whereby and whereunder the petitioners' application under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit against the respondents/ defendants seeking relief of declaration to the effect: sale deeds dated 10.1.1992, 25.3.1992 and 31.3.1992 are void and in-effective. During pendency of suit plaintiffs/petitioners in order to claim relief of possession and injunction on the ground that they were disposed by the respondents/defendants during pendency of suit, fited anapplication for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The same was dismissed by the trial Court. The above order was not assailed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. When the case was fixed for final argument, the instant petition under Order 23 Rule 1 (3) was filed :,-!- al:il; a»e°*s^^ ,,-': "^^. ••-•"s^^-. % t ®sis^fes ^ ._^.^- -v^ ^ v-^^/./ "•-•".•v—^^" -z- by the petitioners for withdrawal of the suit with the permission to file fresh suit. Learned trial Court considering every aspects of the matter dismissed the above application having found petitioners failed to establish sufficient ground for allowing the petitioners/plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit. 3. Shri Suresh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit: there is no limitation prescribed for preferring above application and, therefore learned trial Court has acfed without jurisdiction in dismissing the petitioners' application. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material availableon record including order impugned. 5. The suit was filed in the year 1992 claiming relief of declaration simplicitor; in the year 2010 in order to claim relief of possession and permanent injunction, plairitiffs filed amendment application which was also dismissed by the trial Court. The above order was not challenged by the petitioner, therefore it cannot be said that the suit as framed was defective or petitioners have shown sufficient ground for allowing their prayer to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of the suit as envisaged under Section 23 Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. In view of above, it cannot be said that the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional illegality warranting interference of this Court underArtide 227 ofthe Constitution of India. 7. 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 refrainitself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 8.- Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order astocosts. ffl '•Si t.l...s^gE|^iiii