x Sam amim 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH f) WP. (Q’@ No. %Li 5 X011 .:"Q.‘.- . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226[227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2,T:: . PETITIONER j; :: ggeiilar, S/0.Narsingh Plaintiff Satnami, Aged about 51 years, R/o. . Pahnda, ..90/\®E>.,\ Cs W“ P.H.No.15, R.C. and Tahsil Balouda 2.331% Bazar, ~ Qaugmwb} Versus RESPONDENT : Neelkanth, S/o. Katahur Defendant Satnami, aged about 70 years, R/o. Village ,Pahnda, Tahsil Balouda Bazar, Presently at Village Khandwa, Tahsil Simga, District Raipur (C.G.). HIGH COURT OF CI-IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra \§Q Writ Petition (C) No. 843/2011 Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (11.02201 1) Both courts below have rejected petitioner’s/plaintifs prayer for grant of temporary injunction which was made for restraining defendant Neelkanth to prosecute the mutation case pending before Talisildar, Baloda Bazar in revenue case No.40-A/6/2008-2009. (2) Section 41 (b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that an injunction cannot be gamed to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that hom which the injunction is sought. In View ofthis mandate provided under section 41 (b) of the Act, 1963, the courts below have not committed any error while rejecting petitioner’s prayer for grant of temporary injunction in terms made in the application. (3) It is made clear that the petitioner shall be free to move a duly constituted application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to claim temporary injunction of any other nature which is not prohibited in law. (4) With this observation, the instant petition is dismissed. W Sd/- Prashant K“ Judge mar Mishra PETITIONER : Dileshar Versus RESPONDENT :‘ Neelkanth Appearance: