← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP227/31/2016dismissed

Dharamdas v. Vijay Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit

2016-05-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 31 of 2016

1. Dharamdas S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Khamhardih Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Defendent No.2)

2. Laxmandas, S/o Dwarika Prasad, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Munrethi, Mandir Hasoud Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)............ (Defendent No.4) ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Vijay Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Katora Talab Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through Its President Tej Kumar Bajaj, Resident Of Katora Talab Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Plaintiff)

2. Punaram Bharti S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Munerthi, Mandir Hasoud Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)................(Defendent- 1)

3. Ishwardas S/o Dwarika Prasad, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Khamhardih Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Defendent No.3)

4. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)..............(Defendent No.5) ------Respondents For Petitioners:

Shri N.

Ansari, Advocate.

For Respondent/State:

Shri UKS Chandel, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Single Bench:

Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J Order On Board 11.5.2016 1.

Present is a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 28.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) whereby an application under Section 151 Cr.P.C preferred by the Applicant has been rejected. 2.

A perusal of the impugned order itself would show that it is a speaking order whereby the Court below has considered all the aspects of the case and

found that a similar application has already been moved by the Petitioner which has been rejected and subsequently, by way of the present application under Section 151 CPC, he has moved another application with the same relief which has been rejected.

3.

This Court exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, does not find any good ground calling for interference with the impugned order. The impugned order is a well speaking order and has considered the contentions of the Petitioner and the Court has given justifiable reasons while rejecting the application.

4.

Accordingly, the present Writ Petition being devoid of merits, the same is dismissed.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Priya