IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHA'niSGAKH : B1LASPUR Wril Petitlon No. 453 ot 2006 Petitioners 1. Defendaiits Alam. Sal, S/ o Kam Sai, aged about 65 years, Caste - KamvaT. ^ 2. Gopal Rfim, S/'o SiikjBdev, aged about 55 years, Caste Kanwar. 3. Ghurau, S/o Manohar, aged about 26 years, Caste Kanwar. AU ai-e cultivators, R/o Saaibalpur, P.S. JaiBagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Kupan, S/o Budhram, aged about 65 years, Plzuiitiff Caste Kanwar, Occupation Cultivator, resident of village Sam.balpur, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, D'strict Surguja (C.G.) 2. State of CIuiattisgarh, uirough fhe Couector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) WKIT PE-ri'HON UNUER ARTICLE 226/227 OP'l'HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satisll K. AgmnotriJ.) Mr. A. K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P. K. Bhadiiri, Panel Lawyer for the respondeat no.2. 2. O RDER (Passed on this 2nd Day ofFebmary, 2009). The petitioner, by tfais petition under Artlcle 226/227 of fhe Constifation of India, impugns the order dated 30.6.2005 (Aiuiexui-e P/9), passed by the 1'lui-d Additional Distnct Judge, Sooraipur, Surguja ia Misceilaaeous Civil Appeal No. 6/2004, which was filed against the order dated 6.11.2004 (Amiexure P/8), passed by the Civil Judge Class-il, Soorajpur, Surguja iu Civil Suit No. 86-A/ 2004. Learued Civil Judge atter bavias consid.ered the fa.cts ofthe case ia the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code ot' Civil Procedure caoie to the conclusion Uiat Uic respondent No. 1/plaiatiffwas in possession ofthe plaint schedule laad and ^^.t.s^asSa.&.fc.,:,^.^... •.--—if.^Aarti^wsa;;:: <;':. the balance of convenience was also ui lavour of the respondents No.l. Accordiagly, tkie teinporary injunction was grarited. Leamed Civil Judge furttier directed that ftie inutation proceedings pendiag befbre fhe revem-ie^authorities would be V stayed till ttie disposal of the sult Beiag aggrieved, the petitioiier preterred aa appeai agauist the order dated 6.11.2004. Learued Additional District Judge, haviug examiued alt Uie aspects of ttie inatter came to fhe conclusion that th.e reasons recorded aad the order passed by tbe Civil Judge were just aad proper, iu accordauce with law. Thus, rejected the misceUaneous appeal on 30.6.2005 (Aimexure P/9). 1 have heard learued counsel appearing tbr the peutioner aad 1 have perused ttie records appended to the petition. I do not find aay jurisdictioiial error, irregulanty or illegality iu the unpugned order. It was pruua lacie found that fhe respondent No. 1/plauititl was ia possession, the sauie cau. be decided at tfae tuae of tiual hearuig. Leamed counsel tbr the petitioner subniits that the petitioner is tu possession of the plaiat sctiedule Jaiid. Be tfaat as it niay, tfais cari be decided only at ttie time of tiiial hearing aad so tar as i-estrauung the revenue authorities ia m.utation proceediug, is conceraed, the order is also perfectly valid. If the dispute is pendiag before the civil Court, the revenue authonties must await the decision of the case. The interim. injunction is oiily tiU the disposal oitbe case. It is well-iugh established fhat fhis Court ia exercise of' its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 offhe Constitution of India should refraui itselt' froiu uitert'eruig wifti the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, 6. Tllalcur iltegaJity, irregulailty or jurisdlctioiial error is writ large on fhe face ofthe record, wtaich is not ia tbe present case. Iii view of fhe foregoing, there is no inexit in ttus petition aad tne same is dismissed at laotion st^e. Consequently, M(W)P No. 358/ 2006 is also dlsiuissed. Sd/- S. K. Agnihotri Judge