HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P. [U/A. 227) No. 5223 of 2009 PETITIONER DEFENDANT Krishna Kanhaiya Agrawal, S/o. Babulal Agrawal, Aged about 26 yeaxs, R/o. Seth Basant Lal Marg, Ambikapur, Police Station 65 Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (0G,) Versus Sanjay Kumar Singh, S/o PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT Adyashankar Singh, Aged about 40 years, R/o School Road, Thanganpara, Ambikapur, Dismct Surguja (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Conetitution of India) Appearance: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. oRAL ORDER (14.09.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heéid. The petitioner] defendant has h1ed this wn't petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of order dated cg 7.8.2009 passed 1'11 Civil Suit No. 229—A/2009 by the Third Civil Judge, Class-II, Ambikapur, District Surguja, whereby, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CBC, filed by the petitioner/defendant, has been dismissed by the said Court. It appears that in a suit) temporary injunction was granted in favour of’the plaintid‘ on 25.6.2009. The operative part of injunction order reads that the plaintid‘ would not be dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Mr. Paranjpe submits that almiscellaneous appeal has been med 1 against the said order passed by the trial Court and the same is J/ pending for its disposal. He also submits that since specincation of the J/ suit property was not clear in the plaint and the plaintitl" was misusing the order passed by the trial Court, therefore, with an intention to ff K 2 5'6 W? (ll/A227) No. 5223 of2009 specify the suit propcrty, the petitioner] defendant 1ed an application for issuance of commission for demarcation and ascertaining the suit property so that he could come to know that for what portion of the property, the temporaxy injunction was granted. The leaxned tn’al Judge held that for such pmpose the d under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. and has commisSion cannot be issue dismissed the application. According to the learned tn'al Comt no legal investigau'on for such purpose was required. e, the petitioner raise such grounds in the miscellaneous appeal pending against justified in dismissing In the opinion of this Court, if injurlction order is not clear on the point of identity of suit property and the same is vagu may the order and the learned trial Court was fully the petition for issuance of commission for the said purpose. I do not find any illegality or inhrmity in the order impugned. the same is liable to be dismissed and The petition has no merit, is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself gyrrn ,b