N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 7 ‘ ‘ v PETITIONER PLAINTIFF “ V N semmm‘gfm .......... ‘ ...... .......... RIT PETITION é No. W403 of 2009 1a /Mohhamad Ismile S/o ' Late Shri bhelkh Ahmad, aged about Q6 years, R/o Baljnathpar w Raipur '(C.G.) Versus ‘ Municipal Corporation Raipur, through Commissioner, Municipa Corporation, Raipur, District — Raipur (C.G. dv'g‘xiLuw‘ RESPONDENT ‘DEFENDENT WRIT I, PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS OR LIKE ETC I W a 3;. 9 . a / l ) C» HIH OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR m le Bech Ho’me Shn Justice Prashant Kumar Mlsh W . rit Petltlqn [227) Naum I 2009 Mohhamad Usman ETmONER LAmTlFF Municpal Cdrporation, vRaiur i p ESPONDEN EFENDANT n 4) s Writ Petitio 227 No.4402 ,4 zoo ohhmad lbrahi LAtNT!FF TmONER Versus ip p; Rap _ ‘ Writ Petition 4221) mun: I zoo RESPONDENT DEFENT ' Munical Cororation iur PETITIONER ' Mohama isile REspoNT FNDANT Municipal orportion, Riir v Ca api sm G i H i outam Bhaciuri, counsel forthe'pettion'er. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate With St. Mera Ji the resonden m e aEWai, co ’ pt WRI PETITIO DER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION O lNDlA ‘ vALoR’D 26.023010) T :s_>& he present writ petition ie WP(227) No 4401'I2009~i 44009 as: 3w , disposed of along with W P (227) Nos 4402/2009 & 3120 common question are ansung In all cases l 2) :r ( v/ d p r ismissed the appeal preferred by the etitioner under Orde 7 1) C C ed (r oi P which in tum was preferred to challenge the order at p Cnus By the order impugned in this pe’titio‘ri thé’apellate neha G C S n n ra ’ P P RT D PE Ma m P NDA s hd m PLAINTIFF ' NDE DEE T N UN F ,oRER ( ,. 27-08-2008 passed by the ttial Court, regecting the petitioner’siplaintiff’s application for grant of terhporaty injunction under Order 39 Ru‘e 1 & 2 tead with Section 151 of C.P.C. (3) The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit premises [shop by virtue oi a tease deed and has filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent-Corporation for restraininéwthe authority to not to evict the plaintiff from the suit premises. Accordiné to the plaintiff he being a lessee at the beginning of coming“ ‘tinto ’ possession of the premises he cannot be evicted otherwise thenwin due course of law. Application for grant of temporary injunction was filed on similar pleadings. (4) The Municipal Corporation resisted the prayer for grant of temporary injunction by submitting that the tease granted in favouf of the plaintiff has not been renewed, therefore, his possession is that of an encroacher. Two earlier writ petitions regarding closure of Mutton t shop and regarding removal of encroachment has already/keen dismissed by this Court, though in subsequent writ petition theplgintliff a has been relegated for filing a properly constituted Civil Suit, thus his r prayer for protection of possession has not been considered on / prevrous occasion. (5) Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the petitioner regarding the existence of prime facie case, balance'of convenience and irreparable loss. Appeal against grant or refusal of temporary injunction is considered to be an appeal on principle. (6) This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227; of the Constitution of lndia has very limited power of interference only in cases where the subordinate Courts or tribunals have actedj‘withoutiims er‘f .uz’ f jurisdiction or that the order under challenge would occasion failure of justice. Since the Courts below have exercised their discretionary jurisdiction, this Court does not fund any such manifest or palpable error in exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below so as to warrant interterence under Artioie 227 of the Constitution of india. (7) This Court wouid not iike to interfere with the impugned order for yet another reason because it has been observed by the first appellate 1 Court in paragraph 8 of the order that the Municipal Corporation has i selected the site and is in the process of establishing another market exclusively for Mutton business and that the plaintiff has been handed over a list of 103 shops for selecting one shop in the newly established l market for its allotment to the plaintiff on the tenns fixed by the Corporation lt appears this promise made by the Corporation would e save the plaintiff from being jobless. lt is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the respective rights, title and liabilities of the parties which shall be gone into by the trial Court in course of trial and shall be decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties in course of trial. (8) With this observation the instant petition is dismissed. l Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra i l f g»; 1 Judge