v^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No. 3879/2011 PETITIQNERS Defendants no. 1. Defendant no. 2 1. 2. VERSUS RESPQNDENT Plaintiff Smt. Suman Devi, W/o Shri Dinesh Prasad Shukla, aged about 70 years, Occupation House Wife, Dinesh Prasad Shukla, S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Dutta Shukla, aged about 75 years, Both are resident of Bramhapara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). Through attorney holder of petitioner no. 2 Shri Anoop Kumar Shukla, S/o Shri Dinesh Prasad Shukla, aged about 50 years, Resident of Bramhapara, New • Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). Shri Indramani Pandey, S/o Late Shri Ram Dutta Pandey, aged about 70 years, Resident of Bramhapara Ward, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). 2. 3. WRIT PETITION UJ^DER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondent not noticed. ORAL- ORDER -(Passedon 20/07/2011) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 18/3/2011 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) whereby learned 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) has issued warrant for possession in the old mater of Execution Proceeding No.88A/77. Shri Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners is heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that previously Court below has directed for local inspection by appointing Revenue Inspector as Commissioner vide order dated 29/1/2010 but thereafter without obtaining such report, Court below has proceeded for issuance of possession warrant. :/^^%. f!€l;"11 1 Q^-— ^ ..^' %^^^ '^^^:";;" 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Court below is required to obtain report from the Commissioner before issuance of such possession warrant. 5. Order dated 29/1/2010 reveals that Court has directed to Nazul Inspector for local investigation/inspection and also directed for issuance of possession warrant. Court below has .directed for issuance of possession warrant since its inception in execution proceeding and Court below has not stayed the issuance of such warrant on the ground of local ( inspection/investigation. While again passing such order, 'Court below has not committed any illegality, requiring any interference in exercise of ^-f supervisoryjurisdiction. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is-hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. I T.P. Sharma Judge 1 * ^.,,