i TE HIGH COUR F CHEATHGARI‘I 3&T BILASPUR WPIT PETITION No 7 8 6* OF 2004 Laxmi Ram Das, aged 48 years, Wife of Nimaicharan Das rg’ 0. DarOgapara, Chopra Gali Raigarh (C.G.) Nib ”w Chum'lal Das, agedSQ yearS, JS M Son of Pumachandra Das, j PETITIONER z 1 . Raigarh (C.G-.) ‘ spomDENIS : rfo. Darogapara, Chopra Gali, VERSUS 1. Baldeo Prasad Gupta, aged about : 54 years, Sf o. Baijnath Gupta, ’ r/ o. Bamyapara, Raigarh [c.G.) M] s. Gupta Brothers, through Prop Baldeo Prasad Gupta nsax Old Ham Ra1531h (CG) State Bank of ludia, thl ough Branch Manager, Gandh; Ganj, Ralgarh (C G ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR IS$UANCE OF WRIT IN HE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARY ANDIOR AHY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LEE NATURE as The pentloners most respectfuEy subrmt as under?» 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER he petitioners are permanent residentS of aboVe addressee and they are painters in oivu guitvNo 38 A i or wag gemumg, heme me Cmm m. $ecum Mmmxm B‘xsmcx &\\%,%% Rag‘ax‘u‘ 1 H H T O S , . @g iRE C T T obtained the loan from Sta e Bank of India and the petitioners shave been shown as guar tors ri- /Suph the Bank/respondent the petltioners as well. S] issued on them also it is further submitted that in the banlo The loan was not repaid as 0 3 filed a suit for recovery against A guarantors, summons were nee the petltioners were shown as. locuments serv1ee of summons and in vakalatnama signatures of the petitioners were fraudulentlyg made. ' \ . t e petltionar prays for a direction‘for‘ es for hand writmg expex ts , t l Learned counsel for tr 3 examination of the signatur Having considered tie facts and encumstances and material on record, in the opinion of this Court no case for W'mexercise in jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Consutution of L I l i, L 1 warm l XI-Hc—zz j WWW W g @ § mmwPm'lW {200% : . 1 W i. i6 o4 2004 g i ‘ Appiication Shrl Klshore for BhadurL'coumse; for the petitioners. for urg€nt hearing is allovved. Heard. E By thls pet1t10n filed L nder Article 227 of the ii o? Ind1a petltloner 1s chal‘enging the el‘der dated Constitutien 3 passed by the Court of Hm Additional 10.02.20?! i. Stut No.88—A/ 1999 where 3y the application Judge, Raigarh in Civg'l ? plaintiffs for examination of their signatures‘ moved by : experts has been rei‘ected by hand writinfg 1 E K The allegation 1s tha the respondents No l and 2 hav‘e 1 i ! E Iridlags mags out Petltlon: ¥ ‘ Thls petmon ls d1spo< ‘ E Consequently, M.W.P r =r may however ralse the grounds ,ntuahty ‘arlses. v ed of w1th the observatlon afores No 709/2004 als: stands m a1