VS THE HIGH COVRT OF JUDICATVRB AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIOH no. £sl-3 QF aoos PETITIONER (Defendant No,l) Vs RESPONDENTS (Plaintiff) Mohanlal @ Jitendra Kum.ar, son of Late Tulsidas, aged about 55 years, resident of PriyadarsJhini Nagar, In-front of Jagannath Tcmplc, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.) /1, Smt. Chandra Bai, widow of Late Harilal Chhiyani, aged about 65 years, resident of Shyam Nagar Road, Behind Nurslng Home of Dr. Rawlani, Katora Talab, Raipur through Power of Attorney holder Shri Harish Sadhwani, son of Shri Shyamlal Sadhwani, aged about 33 years, resident of Shyam Nagar Road, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (C,G,). ^2. State of Chhattlsgarh, through the Collector. Korba, Tehsil & District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 237 OF THB COHSTITUTIOII OF IHDIA. 19SO. i, jeAB'w'" c^ul Defendant No.2 BS w B IK K^i B1 HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAn!SGARH: BILASPUR S!NGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRt S.R. NAYAK. CJ WRIT PETITION N0.5519 OF 2005 Mohanta! @ Jitendfa Kumar Versus Smt.'Chandra Bai and another. Present: Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Anand Gupta, iearned eounsel for the petitioner. ORAL QRDER (Passedon21ST November 2005) The fellowing Ordsr of the Court was passsd by S.R. Navak. CJ: - !n a suit for declaration and permanent injuncfion snstituted by ttie respondsnt-plaintiff herein, the tria! Court has granted temporary injunctien restraining the petitioner herein from alienating the suit schedule property. When that order was called in question m an appeal, ths appellate Court too has afRrmed the order of the leamed trial Judge dismissing the appea! preferred by the petitioner herein. Hence, this writ petffion under Articte 227 of the CQnstihttten of india assailing the correctness of the ordsr made by fche leamed trial Judge as affirmed by the leamed appe!!ate Judge. 2. I have heard Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anand Gupta learned counse! for the petitioner. .':!i 3. Leamed counse! for the petiUoner woutd cortsnd ttiat the psHtioner is hoiding a r^istered sale cteed as per wh'ch tfis suit scheduls property bslongs to and owned by the petitioner and as against ttiis piece of eyidence, there is no acceptable lega! evidence to establish any !sga! right in the piaintiff-respondent wfth regard to the suit schsdute property and therefore, ths tearned tria! Judge has not propsrfy and judteious'y exercised discretion vested in him. It is of ubnost importance ttiat in a pending suft, the Court should maintainstatus-quo. Since the sust filed by ths rsspondent-plainW for declarat'on and permansnt injuRCUen te pending, it is but proper that the stetus-qu" that obteined as on ttie date <rf the institution of fte suit shou'd be maintained. If the petiUoner is Dermitted to aiienats the suit schedute property and uffimate'y the plaintiff- respondent succeeds in the suit, it woukl resutt in complicatioRs and a'.'oidabte unnecessary 'itigations. Therefore, no exeeption coufd be teken to the discretion exercteed by the teamed tria! Judge. The writ pstifio" is, therefore, dismissed, however, with no costs. Sd/- Chief Justice ..^' 'aiesh'