HiGH COURT OF •MMfiT ':o.oi"»_i. AKfl Ai Hil.ftSJ Writ Pstition iArt.227) No.lSOS of 2009 Petitlor.er PSa.'ntiff 1'^>^-">TI^''31) Cl, sanaeep Kumar JagatramKa s/o Suresh Kumar, Aged aboist 22 years; R/o Gandhi Chowk, Distt.Raigarh (C.G.)- Raiaai ah. ifs 4. 5. 1. Banwariiaj Jagatramka S/o Laie Shri Basantisi aged sbout 84 years R/o 129 C, Kari marx Sarni panchva Tails Khidirpur, KoiKatta-23 (WB). 2. Ankuj Kumar Jagairamka S/'o Late Shri Mahesh Kumar R/o 129 C, Kari marx Sarni panchva Talla iylidirpur, KoikatSa-23 (WB). 3. SmiAsha Devi Jagatramka W/'o Navneet Kumar Jagatramka aged about 31 years R/'o Nayaganj Raigarh (CG). Navneei Jagatramka S/o Late Shri Prem Prakash Jagstramka, aged about 36 years R/'o Gandhiganj, ?aigarh (CG). State of CShhattlsgarh Co'lector Raigarh (CG). 'hrouah "he M/rit ijn-E'iTini^ i iv^f4s^f A m/"*^ <5ij!,iUli UiiUS;! rti i.iwic ^'5"7 £-£.i\ff the Constiiution of india) t«r% i iinir-'sir! <^.rit«ir^c* 'ii i i ivv^i I, ii/^Ui ic?f insei for the petitioner. None present for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Ramakant Pancisy, counsei for respondents No.3 and 4. Mr.Akhii Agravtfai, Psnel Lswyer for respondent No.S/State. <<i Mr T O SS on bie h",r. T.P. snanna, u.) ( 1 ORDgR (28-11-2011) . By this writ petition under Articls i~ T57 nf +ho r»n She Constitution nf petitloner has chalisnged the iegaiity and propriety of ihe order daied 10.2.2009 passed by the 4ih Civii Judge CIass-il, Raigarh, in Civi! Suit No.'TOA/O?, whereby t'ne 4"' Civii Judge Ciass-ii has dismissed the i-'^^iaNS- /^ ^ fcsa s;^:s'•^•s^*^^^^®t -* •"•-Sy -^ appjJcatioR fiisd on behaif of the petltionsr dated S.2.200S for temporary injunction on the ground that if has aiready besn decided vlds order dated 28.6.2008. A,. i iiave heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused the order Impugned and other documenfs fsied on behaif of ihe petitioner. 3. Learned courssei for ihe petjfioner submlts fhai vide order dated 27.6.2008 case '.vas fixed for ssitlement or issues snd no order was rscorded ror 28.6.2008. Ho appficatlon for tsmporary InjuncSion has been disposed of on 28.6.2008 whteh is clear from the certified copy of the order dated 27.6.2008. Leamed counsei furthsr submits thsf the peiitioner has again obtained certified copy of the aforss^id ordersheet on 4.9.2008 whteh reveais ihaf OR the back page of ordersheet case was fixed for 28.6.2008 and Injuncilon appiication v/as disposed ofwhich doss not find place on 28.6.2008, it has been shown as biank. 4. i have psrused both the certmed copy of the ordsr dsted 28.6.2008. 5. in the present case, the respondsnis were ex-parte berore the Court. The preseni petitloner himself is the counse! and has rsoted the case for 10.7.2008 on 27.6.2008, Shereafter back of ordsrshset he has agaln notied ths case ror 10.7.2008, but the afcresaid page ss biank. Second certlfled copy rsveals that ordersheet has been recordeci on 28.6.2008 and it v.'as dtiiy singed by ihe petitioner. This circumstance shows ihai the petitioner has tried to manipuiate this case by flilng fauity certified copy, oiherwise, there is no occasion for sjgning snd noting on back page Considering the aforesaid fact, 'vvithout further observation, the 'A'rit pstlt?on stands disposed of. No order as to cosfs. 7. interim appiicatlon stands dtsposed o7.~ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge