This petition challenged an order rejecting a plea to decide an issue as a preliminary. The High Court found no illegality in the lower court's observation that the issue involved mixed questions of law and fact.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
^
-{
^oV
IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR,
of2013 ^?" W.P. (227) N0 .1^ Bl M.S.P Steel and Power Ltd., 3 Jamgao, Through Prashant Pandey S/o 8 N Pandey, Age 43 .^ Resident of years, ~ Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, P.8, ^-•" ...'•• Tahsil, CivilT and Revenue District Raigarh (CG)
PETITIONER Defendant No. 3 .^ Al /•-.•f''".1''^L--" -'^ ^R<^' ^-•" ...'•• ...-••^ ..'•1;;^V-J'"" ^^i^,3^+"" ,3^yw' ....-"' ^ ^K'
vs
RESPONDENTS 1) Plai-ntiffs
Smt. Geeta W/o Dilip Kumar Singhaniya, Age 42 years, Resident of Baradwar, P.SBaradwar, Tahsil Sakti,, Civil and Revenue District Janjgir-Chapa (C.G)
Smt. Santoshi W/o Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Age 38 years, Resident of Gudarwani, P.S- Gudarwani, Tahsil Lormi, Revenue District Mungeli and Civil District Bilaspur (C.G)
Smt. Laxmi W/o Devarchan Kumar Agrawal, Age 33 years, Residence of Laykera, P.S Laykera, Tahsil Laykera, District Jharsuguda (Odissa)
DefendantNo.l4) Suresh Kumar Agrawal S/o Lt. Prabhudayal, Age 48 years
Defendant No.2 5)
Sita Bai W/o Lt. Prabhudayal, Age 70 years Respondents 4 and 5 both Resident of village Jamgao, P.S, Tahsil, Civil and Revenue District Raigarh (C.G)
Defendant No.4 6) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raigarh (C.G)
WRIT^PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
H'f ^SS*?-, 1 I "^B»^^r>•-!f ./ ^^ ( W7N
HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SB : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER
W.P.(227) N0.729 of 2013
PETITIONER M.S.P.Steel and Power Ltd., (Defendant No.3) Jamgao
Versus
RESPONDENTS Smt. Geeta and Others ^PIaintiffs/Defendantsl
WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUtiON OF INDIA
Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Pl for the State.
OROER (04.10.2013.)
Challenge in the present petition is to the, order dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh whereby the learned court below has rejected the application as filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 under Order 14Rute2oftheCPC.
Before the Sessions Judge request of the petitioner was that issue No.4 be decided as preliminary issue whereas while considering the application it has been observed by the court below that the issue involved is a mix question of law and facts and therefore the same would be de.cided along with the main issue.
1 find no illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting interferenee by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is sans merits, the sanis deserves to be a'nd is, accordingly dismissed in limine.
st^auet
Sttd^
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application to decide an issue as a preliminary issue was illegal or perverse warranting interference under Article 227.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.S.P. Steel and Power Ltd.
Smt. Geeta
Suresh Kumar Agrawal
State of Chhattisgarh
Pritinker Diwakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
