Iffii HiGH COURT OF CHHATfiSGARH AT BiLASPuE Writ Petition (Ari:.227S No.2725 of 2011 o,Pstitionsr Defsndant No.1 Mandodari Bai, agsd about 55 years, D/o Nanki Chandrsnahu, R/o Viliage Jamgahan, Tahsii Malkharoda, Dlstt.Jaansair-Champa (C.G.) " _ V'Si'sys Rsssondents ! ELJII ILt Ri 1. Dhanuati Ram, sged about 69 years, S/o Bundai Chandranahu, 2. Tanush Ram, ^ed about 55 ysars, S/o Bunda! Chandranshu, Both R/o viiiage tonaidih, Tahsil Ma'kharods, Distt.Janjgir-Champa 3. State of Ch'nattisgarh, Through the Coilector, Distt.Janjgsr-Chanpa. Defendant No.2 (Writ Petltion under Articte 227 ofthe Constitution of tndia) Mr.Ravindra Agrawal, counsel for ths petjtioner. Mr.Siddarth RaShod, counsei for respondents No.1 and 2. iyr.Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.3/'S1:ate. (SB: Hon'bi®Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) (31-10-2011) 3y this writ pefition undsr Articie 227 of trte Constitution of india the petitioner has chaiienged the legality and proprieiy of the order datsd 3.12.2010 passed by ihe Aa'ditlonal Districi Judge, Sakti, In Misc.Civii Ap\»^ii^s3 ?<*.r» El i^u. 5/2010, whereby the Additionai DisSrict »• ailowjns appeai has granted injuRctlon in favour of respondents No.1 and 2. 2. I have heard iearned counsei forthe parties, perused and other documents fiied on behalfofthe petitioner. the impugned 3. Order impugned revsate that in the year 1961 father of respondents No;1 and 2 has purchased the property in hls name and after death offathsr of rsspondents No.1 and 2 they are in possessior; ofthe property. There is dtepute--reiating to owriership/'joint-ownership, but there te no dispute reiating to phySical possession ofthe property. aa^ ""•^•^.i^'ffiffli^S^^^i.^p^GeF:^^^ ^ . i do not find sny scope for interfersnce in the order impugned. Consequentiy, ths writ petition is iiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed st the motion stage itself. No order as to ccsts. 5. interim appiication stands disposed of»f Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge w. xr iS'^r ililil; iiia ffl'"