(99 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIWIIRI-I AT BILASPUR $3 : HOH’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.p. (227; no. 2194/2009 PETITIONER Rajkumar Kashyap , Sf o. Plainti§ Sambhu Masad, agmi about 38 years, r] 0‘ Near Bar'ambaba Mandir, Toxwa, Biiaspur, Tehsii and District BilaSpur (CG) RESPONDENTS 1. Ajay Kapse, Slo. Late Defeadants R.K.Kapss, aged about 4O years, rio. Rajkishore Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, pmsently o$ce at RK. Construction, Near Police Stau'on Sarkanda, Bilaspur 2. Smt. Anita Kashyap, W/o. Rajkumar Kashyap, r/o. Near Baram Baba Mandir, Toma, presently rlo. Sambhu Shri Complex, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur through Shyam Kashyap 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through District Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) WRIT PETITXON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Apyearaace: Shri Shailendra Soni, counsel for the petin'oner. Shrl Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (28.04.2009) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heaxd itinallv. ' @ Challenge in the writ petition is to the ordcr dated 09.04.2009 passed by VI‘h Additional District Judge, Bilaspur m M.A.C. No. 02/2009, whereby the appeal as preferred by the petiu'oner challenging the order of learned Civil Judge rejecting the application as tiled under Order 39 Rule 1 8r, 2 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure has been affirmed. I have perused the record and the order impugned. Both the courts below have given a concurrent hnding and have specihcally held that the petitioner is not entitled for any temporary injunction as per the requirement of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was nled on 15.09.2006 and counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that till date even the plaintin‘ has not nled the affidavit as required under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The conduct of the plaintin‘ itself shows that the plaintin‘ has no urgency in the suit. Looking to the facts, there is no error apparent on the face of record to interfere with the reasoned orders passed by the courts below. The petition is accordingly dismissed. As the suit is pending since 15.09.2006, it is expected that the suit itself will be decided expeditiously preferably within a period ofsix months from the date of receipt of this order. It would/he thed-uty of the petitioner to submit the order of this Court before the trial’court so that the matter will be decided expeditiously. Sdl- ritinker Diwaker, Judge . y . P