IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH 3§ W.P. ( Under Article 227) N0. /2008 PETITIONER Prashant Kumar Shukla, Aged about 44 years, S/o. Awadh Bihari Shukla, R/o. Shanar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT . " Smt. Pratima Mishra, W/o. DEFENDANT Pramod Chandra Mishra, R/o. Qtr. N0. 3/15, Akashwani Staffl Quarter, Putla Chowk, Katora Talab, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C G ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA V n.A.DnlIllLT.L WTTTInhnTD IQ\ . / PLAINTIFF %& W W WT? Tam W 9 (229D Nb W33M mm Hi zoo wm‘ im‘mé‘am mm (Wm ammm SB: HOE. SHRI JEISTICE ELK. AGARVJAL 14-7—Q909 Shn' Manoj Paranjpa, Advocata, far the peu'ticmer. ent though served through dasti service, for which the petitj aer has med affldavit. None for the resp The matter is heaixi a}1y at motion stage. The instant petition i directed agaillst the part of the order ciated 13-2-2008 passed 9th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 34—A/ 2 O5 whereby and Whereunder, the agiplicatioo filed by the peti ‘oner/ plaimi§ under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. has been rejected y the trial Court. Brief facts of the c se are that the peu‘tioner/ piaintiif instituted a suit claiming e relief of declaration and permanent injunction over the suit property. Later on, the plaint was amended and it was plead d that during pendency of the suit, the defendant dispossesse the p1aintiff from the suit preperty and raised superstructure d by way of the amendment claimed the reiief of possession ove the suit pronerty and aiso paid the Court fee. By way of the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of QRC. the petitioner has prayed ifor framing a specific issue in this regard. The trial Court Viide order impugned dismissed the anplication on the. ground that the relief of possession ciaimed by 1 1 I w : d O‘ b WW W mm w . 93322.1“...fgj l oo 3W mm (Wu) WWW WW WWR . %aif?maa1%¥1 Le §€ti1ionsrj wiahE‘ff is already covgrgd unaisr Issue No. 7, Winch ads as Hilda - wm w‘ am? i) Aft€r heaiing Shri iDaIalljpe aim aft€r penning Tim recorci, E am of ths considvsred opmizm mat following i$sues ought to haw b6€11 framac‘l by the trial (Smut upoa The agplication 131ml by the ' §etition€rl plgdgtiff: — " LErmaTa$6fW1§mmm§EWWT$WW W w § ?" “zwménqWm wwWwm$mm¢®w Qea mm gm aw? w'arm €? Thsreibrs, it is dirscted that fae trial Court‘ shall frame the aforesaid issu€ in 11m sui: aild fhcrsaftcr Ebrocsad to d€cide the suit in accorda11C€ with law. Accordiagly, the petiti: m is allowad. No order as to costs. W "