\^ Petitioner PSaintiff Respondents Defendants H8GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitlon (Art.227) No.6186 of 20W . Kedarnath Saraf, S/o Lat®Shi^ Laxms Prasad Saraf, aged about 62 years, R/o Gondpara, Btlaspur, DistriGt-Biiaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Smt.Savitri Saraf, W/o Late Kanhaiyalat Saraf, R/o Gondpara (Subhash Nagar), Tahsi! & Distriet-Bllaspur (C.Q.) . ?•• 2. State of Chhatttsgarh, through the Coilector, Bitaspyr. District-Bjlaspar (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitytion of Sndia) Mr.Bharat Rajput, counsei for the peiJtJQ^er. Mr.Saiim Kazi, counsei for respond@ntNo.1. Ms Sangoeta Mishra, Panei Lav<y©rforrespondent No.2/State. (SB: Hon'bi®Mr. T.P. Sharrea. J.) ORDERfORAL) (23-8-2011) 1. By this writ petition under ^rticte 227 of the Constitutiion ©flndl@ th@ petlljoner has chaltenged the logaiify & propriety of She order dated 4.10.2010 pass@d by the 3rd AcJdJtional District Judge, Bilaspur in MJsc.Civjl Appeal No.22^10, .affirming the order rejection appiication for tnjunction ctat@d 9.8.2007 passsd by the 7th Cjvil Jucige Ctass-11, Bitaspur tn Civil Sujt No.68A^07, whereby considering the oSd dispute and present dispute fr»e Court b@iow has not granted injunction in favour ofthe present petitioner. 2. i have heard learned counsel for tho par^es, perused the order jmpugned and copses of other orders fiied on behaifofthe petitioner. 3. Learned counsei for the potitioner submits that in previous Qround of iitigation both th©Courts beiow have heid the possession of the prQs©rtpetitioner, but sn second round of litigation, both the Courts bQlow havs refused to grant injunctson ordor. 4. On the other hand, iearned counsei for respondent No.1 opposes th©pstition. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2 formally opposes th©psBtion. 'Y^^ "^*yfv^-" \\0 -^- 6. Previousjy injunction appiicatfon was decldod and presently jRjunction appiication fsted by the petitioner has been dismissed by both the Coarls below. Both the Courts beSow have not arrived at a fnding In b©thK>und of iimitations reiatsng to possossion of the party, finding of pos^ssjon, prima facie case or question of irreparabie Soss at the t«m@ of deciding tto application fiSed under Order 39 Rui@ 1 & 2 of the Code of Givil Proe^dur®, 1908 is prima fiacie finding and not condusive finding which wiii not ©ffocthe rights and Siabiiity ofths parties finaily. They are r©quir@dto addyce evidence sn support of their ciaim. With the aforesaid observation, i do not find any lilegaiity or improprtety m the order impugned warranting interference in oxercise of supewisory jun^iictSort. Consequentiy, the writ petition is liabie to be dismissed and 'rt is hereby dismissed. However, considenng the old dispute reiating to poss@ssion, the triaS Court is directed to expedite the triai and docide th@ same as eariy as possible< No order as to costs. _„ -—— Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge {^