9 I/ x“ U104; URT 6F JUBECATURE AT BILAS?UR:C.G.V IN THE HEGH CO warm. 32x54 mm / PEWTIONER: P. Champalal, aged 45 yTs., s/o Shri (plaintiff) f Jethma1 Prajapati, r/o New Shanti nagar, Raipur,C.G. RFSPGNDENT : (N0. {is defendant) J[\ )b» / Home Affairs, D.K.Singh Bhawan VERSUS. Keshav, aged 74- y:s., s/o Shri Govind Chimia§f7g near Sindhu Bhawan? Sector-Z Devendra nagar, Raip‘ur, C’G. Nii‘xth Civi1 Judge Class 2, Raipur,C.G. Fmrm A&c‘dti0na1 District Judge, Rmpar,C.G. ; {i 4. The State of Chhaitisgarh, through Secretary to the Department of Secretariate, Raipm,C.G. The Superhltendent of poiiee, Raipur. The Statieh House Offxeer, E—‘oliee Station, Civi1 knes, Raipur,C.G. VVRIT PETITION UNBER ARTICLES 2%AND/2/27 OF THE CONSTITUTTN OF INDTA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/ CERTIORARAI/ PROHIBITION OR DIRECTIVE /ORDERS IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. / XI—HC-22 c9, 13.04.2005: - Shri Bhishma Kinger, lea‘rne d coun5el for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Mishra, iearned counsei for respondent No. 1. Shri R.R.Sinha, learned P.L Heard on admission. . for the Statelrespondents 4 to 6. The petitioner has filed th Constitution of india for issuanc order dated 18.06.2003 and 19 Class-ll; Raipur in civil. Suit . Judge, Raipur in Miso. Civii application for temporary injuncti been rejected hiy both the Courts The case of the petitioner, s that the petitioner filed a civil suit under f Act for delivery of possession and perpetual injunction on the gr und that on the basis of some oral chased by him from the respondents in f the said transaction, the petitioner was operty. . lt was aiso submitted by the OOOJ— towards the above transaction has already been paid by him to the espondents and he was in possession of when he was dispossessed by the ance of police andiagainst thisiillegal been filed. Section 6 of the Specific Reli agreement the suit land was pu the year 1.998 and on the basis put in possession of the suit p petitioner that a sum of Rs. 4,15 the suit property till 04.05200 respondent No. 1 with the assi disossession, the above suit has t petition under Article 226’ and 22? of the of writ of certiorari for setting aside the 07.2003 passed by the 9m Civil Judge; 19-N2003 and 4‘“-Additionai District peal No. 36/2003 and whereby the n preferred by the plaintifflpetitioner has elow. (@W) i e N p p XI—HC-22 mm . mammaf'aa WW WW The respondénts in their ritten statement denied the averments of the plaintxas also the averment made in the application for temporary injunction. The petitioner had move an application far temporary injunction whereby it was prayed that till the disposal of the suit the defendant should be restrained from exec mg the sale deed of the swtmroperty to any other person. Learned C ll Judge vrde order dated 1806 2003 dismissed the application for te porary Injunction by recording a finding that the plaintiff has no prima fa ie case and he is also not in possession of the suit property and as such alanoe oftab convenience Is not in favour of the plaintiff and on the contrary some arbitiearg order is passed against the defendant, irreparable injury shall oe caused to the defendant. The appeal was preferred by the pla tiff against the order of the loamed Civil Judge and the learned A.D.Jt al o dismissed the appeal by the impugned order. » Learned counsel for the etitioner submits that he has tiled a suit for restoration of possession und r Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and in case the respondents alienate the property and transfer the possession of the same to some 3m person multiplicity of the proceedings will arise and in the above circumstances, the Courts below ought to have allowed the application for temporary ini' notion and ought to have restrained the defendant from alienating the pro erty or effecting 3rd paity interest" i have heard learnedvoo nseifor the petitioner as also for the respondents. (heated wm