f C/ f 60L IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 5W5 WRIT PETITION C NO. OF 2006 PETITIONER P\a'\‘vy\‘I‘-§ Yogendra Kumar Kesharwani, S/o Late Shri Shiv Prasad Kesharwani, aged about 48 years, R/o Kaalimai Ward, P.O. Mungeli, Tahsil -Mungeli Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS , RESPONDENTS /1. Chandra Kumar Kesharwani Dav-Hmg (MIA; S/o Late Shri Shiv Prasad Kesharwani, aged about 70 years, P. O. Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Smt. Ganeshi Bai,W/o Shri Posagilal Gupta, aged about 70 years, R/o Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Suryakant Kesharwani, S/o Shri Chandra Kumar Kesharwani, aged about 43 years, Ramakant Kesharwani, S/o Shri Chandra Kumar Kesharwani, aged about 41 years, RespondentNo.3 & 4 R/o Gandhi Ward, Mungeli,Tahsil Mungeli DisttBilaspur (C. G) Smt.Geeta Bai, Wd/o Late Shri Raj Kumar Kashyap, aged Wig) feWi‘Tééttb b about41 years, .gy’ W 0 6. Yogendra Kumar, S/o Late V w Raj KumarKashyap, aged about 26 years, 7. Upendra Kumar, S/o Late I, Raj Kumar Kashyap, aged about 24 years, XI—HC—22 HW,W,W 3mm w. P46) Mb. 59 75 mé dated 02.8.2006 passed in Civil District Judge. Mungeli by plaintifflappellant under Order 41 has been dismissed by the First A The brief facts are that ‘ permanent injunction and posse dismissed vide judgment and der Court. The last Para of the afore: failed to establish his case, there and accordingly it was dismissed. Learned counsel for th petitioner submits that since it was apprehended by the petitioner/a pellant that during the pendency of first V appeal, mutation etc., in the rev nue records may be undertaken by the defendant after dismissal of the uit, therefore, the petitioner had tiled an application for stay of the exec tion of the judgment and decree under Order 41 Rule (5) of C.P.C. Needless to say that in such situation,for the interim relief of protecting right pertaining to the uit property, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5(1) of C.P.C. were not ava lable to the plaintiffinstead, plaintiff may have med an application for tem orary injunction under Order39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. Appeal No. 22-A/2006 by the Additional which an application tiled by the Rule (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure ppellate Court. 'he plaintiff tiled a suit for declaration. ession and the aforesaid civil suit was :ree dated 03.2.2006 passed by the trial ,aid judgment says that since the plaintiff fore, the suit was liable to be dismissed WW w 200 W m am Wm WW WmatW mW £fmWI a\amm 10.1 1 .2006 Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for the Counsel for the Petitioner. Heard on admission. By way of this writ petition flied under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india the petitione' has challenged the legality of the order XI—HC—22 WZ/ 3am,wf1m,i%lam$ Wm “WP-QC) we. 5975 M6 Be that as it may, for the present, it is suffice for thi$ Court to say that in fact no prima facie cztse was made out in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner to pass any interim order on the assertions made in the said interim appiication and the first appeliate Court has rightly rejected his appiication tiled under the aforesaid provisions of iaw. The petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. I However, as the impugned order shows that the First Appellate _ Court has already hxed the case for final hearing, it is observed that the said Court shall expedite the hearing of the case at the earliest so that the dispute raised between the parties is settled once for all. M.W.P.No.4452/2006 fO‘ grant of ad-interim relief and I.A.No.10399/2ooe also stand disposed or. ‘ V Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \Z” 0% W) WW 200 W mam r mam m m m w WW§W®W WW H Q/ / $WW§W