t^-lif gE^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH MISC. APPEAL N0. ^r OF 2006 Appellant Plaintiff ^ Dr. Tarun Kumar Naik aged about 40 years, S/o Dr. Radhe Shyam Naik, R/o Maoja - Baghera, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus Respondents Defendants 5. Arjun Singh Bhuwal, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Vishnu Singh Bhuwal, R/o New Adarsh Nagar, Borai Road, Durg, Tehsil & Distt Durg (Chhattisgarh) Krishna Kumar Belchandan, Aged about 65 years, S/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Belchandan. Kamal Singh Belchandan, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Badri Prasad Belchandan Gaya Prasad Belchandan, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Badri Prasad Belchandan Champalal Belchandan, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Badri Prasad Belchandan (Sl. No. 2 to 5 R/o MIG-1/934, Amdi Nagar, HUDCO, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) 6. Tijiya Bai aged about 62 years, D/o Late Badri Prasad Belchandan, R/o New Address - Opposite Shiv Mandir, Near Chowk, Durg, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) 7. Angeshwar Belchandan, aged about 27 years, D/o Tularam Belchandan 8. Uma Belhandan, aged about 23 years, D/o Tularam Belchandan 8^61.'iynagQoad-ii^io ao ggo3 3HJ.yQ1.3^n^t^^i^C>^QNOT^cliW^B€3NV^33SIIW ^lA^;%t®^%^^i^I^N^;^^ <i.|J|e6s!^i|L|Q) Bjna 'jopQiioo^ui^ 46nojq}tije®s!neiJL|3j09ie^g -oi. (L|jeBs!^ei.|L|o) uoeBpueufey ^S!a"eiyot|-^!S^;'e|oieiuo^o/y^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ pueiaun^-e^eQ&^^ ^,-K 1 uepueL|o|ag LuejBinj.o/a'sjeQAei.inoqe pQ6etuepueijs>i©g^eue(3ueg •6 ^' XI-HC—78 3TI^t'^FT f^TN? WT 3T?^T ^TRTGF ^' ^i) WWIT tl»*l|c|» T^r •^I^K'I'M, yTTl-H<l<o, fsK'll'My .{^.::.h...^.?.....^..L^i^200^ ^TT^T T^7 ( yit^^) ^wi^R ^f^a 3?T^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aabrwal 29-10-2009 Shri R.S. Mlarhas, counsei foj' Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt.| Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the Stat^ Heard on admission. The instant appeal is 2006 passed by Vlllth Additlonal Suit No.S-A/2006 whereby and 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. filed dismissed. Thefacts brieflystated as The appellant/plaintiff declaration for title on the basi^ permanent injunction. He has temporary injunction under Order 39 Court after hearing both theparttes) it did not appear that the pjaintiff is| also held prima facie by the trial stends in the name of apptication was dismjssed. Shri R.S. Marhas, learned that the leamed Trial Court has ei| <=bl^(<r<41'i 'RFI^ff ^ f^t Tf^gK ^'3ff^Rf3?T^l tieappettant. Advocate wifi Shri Sanjeev Kumar Stat^/ respondent No.10. direcfled against the order dat@d 07-03- Ipjstrict Judge (F.T.C.) Durg in Civil whe^eunder the application under Order |>y the appelJanVplatntiff has been unper: inst|tuted a suit seekjng reMef of of advers^ possession and for ^lso preferred an application for Rule 1 & 2 ofC.P.C. Learned Trial recorded a finding tfiat prima facie |in possession pf suit property. It is pourt thatadmittedly fie property defenda|ite/respondents and thereby the co|jnsel for the appellant would submit (red in recording the prima facie 3?^t'5RTf^NT ^TO 37T^T ^Nict» Kvr i.1Ti(di n»iicn 75sr v^ll<Llld<LI, ^xl1<i4i<o, [^l^l^y ^......^M..^^^..•^200^ sn^T Tra^ (yhq<^) ^<nw^?^^ chl^(<ri4l^ '^R^t* ^? 'fe^f <F»i^< ^<ttfOT3?nt^T finding that the appellant/plaintiff i^ not Jn possession of the suit land and, therefore, the order passed b^ the learned trial Court is bad and deserves to be set aside. After hearing learned cou perusing the order impugned, in finding recorded by the trial Court is isel for the appellant and after ny considered opinion prima faoie 1 based on record and appears to be IS| s|iot correct. The appejlant/ptaintiff has |iot filed any document showing his possession over the suit properiy ^ the land stends recorded in the rev persons. Jn view of above, by no ^treteh of imagination it can be said nce 06-10-1983. On the contrary, enue records in the name of other that prima facie, the appellanVpla| possession ofthe suit property. Mo| 2006. As submitted bythe leamecf being recorded in the case. In vie^ at the verge of disposal, interferenej ntiff is in actual physlcal or legat eover, this appeal is pending since counset for the parties, evidence is of the fact that since ttie matter is ^e in the order passed by the trial Court is also not desirable. Therefore, appeal is dismiss^d. However, it is direeted that ttte learned Trial Court shalf decide the ^uit as eariy as possible preferably within a period ofsix monthsfrom fh4date of receipt ofthis order. In view of above, M.(C).P. No.p69/2006 stands clismissed, Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge