(2?: §// mmuat mam?i@(@/ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT'bF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT ‘BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PET1T10N(227)‘ No. $iéz/2009. ‘ PETITIONER: L/ ‘ Virendra Kumar, aged about 36 y6ars, (Appellant) son of Late Chowa Ram Ja'iswal, residence of village Sail, Tahsil Kasdole, District Chhattisgarh. Raipur, versus \, espondents /1. Laxminarayan, aged about 60 years, efendant n son of Shivrinarayan residence of Katg1, Pohce Station and Tahs Kasdole District Raipur C G . Chunnilal, aged about 60 years, son of Ramdayal Jaiswal, residence of Sail; Police Station and Tahsil Kasdole, District Raipur, C.G. . State ofChhattisgarh, Through . Collector Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. . Smt.Nirmala Bai, aged about 56 years, wifeChowaram. Rajendfa Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Chowa Ram. . Mahendra Kumar, aged about 22 ‘ years son of Chuwa Ram All three res1dence of Village Sail Tahs11 Kasdole District Raipur, C G . Smt. Manorama (Meena), aged about 37 years, wife of Sukhdev Singh 'Bharga, residence of Navapara (Dabhra) District Janjg‘r-Champa, C.G. Smt.Sharda Bai, aged about 33 years, wife of knh, resienc of ' ‘ ~~—".~»~——rr’i; m—:A . R “Ds: ; «. . Loat de mmmwwwuwjwhugmiazmw - S S _‘ 141 2-2009 MC Jayant K Rao co nseifor the petitioner hn Sanjeev KumarAgrav al P L fo. the smte Heard 0n admisszon e ad w pr e Feling aggrieved by th' ofder dated 18-68-200§ whereby ‘ n hereunder the apphcatlon nder Order 41 Rule 5 of the C P C r ‘ refe d by tf‘e petitioner has b en dasmrssed xhe mstant petition is 'riied. The facrs briefiy stated as nder The oetitioner/plaintiff f! d a suit against the respondem}: See relief of deciaration of tit e. The said suit was dismissed bye rh V e said stay application has been sed Vide order Impugned by the appellate Court hence this king I e trial Court The petitione went in appeal Also‘ filed an " ppan for grant of stay earned counsel appeari g for the petitioner would submit that-since the petitioner/plaint is In adverse possession of the ppt therefore the appellate Couit ought to have granted stay l have heard learnedcou eel for the parties and perused the _ rr impugned By way of apptication und r Order 41 Rute 5 of the C P C the pener sought stay against the effect and operation o. the dmen and decree passed b e trial Court Since the trial Court a tssed the suit of the pl intiff/petiiioner nothing remains for > hs dism w alictio dismis h L i roery ode titio jugt y h wwwyé #44 0‘3 mm W Mmm $52 , ‘ WW @W %;W311%¥I staying. Thefefore, the tria Ceurt has right§y d§smissed the app£ication preferred by the petl ioney ané no fault can be fcund in it. The petiizioner has uiter£y filed £0 demchstrate any ground Cour: wider Artic§e 227 of the wai'rantmg interference of ’Eh wonsuiution of india h vsew 0f the above t e petition bemg devoid of mews Is !§eble to be aac‘ is hereby dism: sed ai admisazon stage. i