Smt. Janki Bai Ahir v. Nilesh Kumar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to pursue remedy before the competent jurisdictional civil court, ifso advised.
Judgment
of Shri Heera Singh Ahir, aged about 55 years.
#2. Smt. Janki Bai Ahir, wife of Shri Ramesh Chandra Ahir, aged about 52 years. Both residents of Gole Bazar, infront of Vinayak Hotel, Raipur (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENTS:
#1. Nilesh Kumar son of Shri 1^^ ^^.•••"'. v .^'y'^i'' ' Monubhai Patel, resident of Patel Complex, Padmnabhpur, District Durg. Bhikhu Bhai, son of Shri Ishwar Bhai Patel, resident Patel Complex, Padmnabhpur, District Durg.
#3. The Raipur Municipal Corporation, through the Commissioner, Malviya Road, Raipur.
#4. The Market Superintendent, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTK;LE 2267227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC.QR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR OJIDERTO DQ JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. <c;Et eu.^^v '^-^ '^ ^ '•;: :1 •' % HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 286 of 2005 PETITIONER : Ramesh Chandra Ahir & Another. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Nilesh Kumar & Others. W_R!T PETITJQN UJMDERARTICLE_226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: Shri Vivek Chopda, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 and 4. ORDER (OPEN COURT) (Passed on 08th day of July, 2013)
#1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 07.04.2004 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, whereunder appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, has been rejected.
#2. The question raised herein was with regard to possession and ownership of the shop No. 407, situated in Gandhi Market, Raipur. The dispute was taken to the court of 5 Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 9- A/2001. The application filed by the petitioner s6eking injunction against the respondent No. 1 and 2 was rejected on the ground that the respondent No. 1 and 2 were in possession of the shop jn question. There-against, an appeal was filed being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 08/2000 before the District Judge, Raipur, the appeal was also dismissed by order dated Biii 'IMili ^^'iiEt.t,^ :• l]%gs^ j J ji '/^»S^J ':^f's" '-•^^ .^y .^ 'fl' &-!'t
28.03.2000. ln both the cases it had been held by way of interim order that the respondent No. 1 and 2 were in possession of the shop in question.
#3. Thus, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur has rightly dismissed the appeal against the order dated 20.03.2004 by the impugned order dated 07.04.2004 holding that the application for deletion of of the name of respondent No. 1 and 2, and in lieu, the petitioner be substituted, was rsjected. There is no merit in this case, as the dispute is pending consideration before the competent civil court.
#4. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to pursue remedy before the competent jurisdictional civil court, ifso advised.
#5. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ii.; ii'm'"fl
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.