^^ ^ '\ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA JVilSHRA.J Wnt Petition (c) No. 2894 of2010 ^ Petltioner : Mahendra Kumar aged about 65 years, S/o BrijJai Piaintiff Gandhi, R/o Darogapara, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh (CG) Versus 1. Defendants 2. 3. Santram, aged about 52 years, S/o Munuram Chouhand, Mu. Sonai Bal, aged about 73 years, W/o Late Sonudas. Sohanlal, aged about 52 years, S/o Murarilai Agrawal, R 1 to 3 R/o Darogapara, Tah and Distt. Raigarh. 4. Bajram, aged about 55 years, S/o Lakhiram Agrawai, R/o Mukharjee Marg, Kharsiya, DIstt. Raigarh. 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Coliector, Raigarh Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, oounse! for the petitioner. ORAL (24th June, 2010) The instant writ petitlon ss directed against the order dated 10th iViarch, 2010 (Annexure P/7) passed by iearned itl Additiona! District Judge, Raigarh, whereby mlscellaneous civil appeai preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 43 Rute 1 of CPC against the order (Annexure P/5) of the triaf Court rejecting petitioner's appiication for temporary injunction, has been further dismissed. The petitioner/plalntiff in his sultfor declaration anci perpetual injunction fiied an applicatlon for temporary injunction and prayed for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defergdants from interfering in hls possesslon over the suit property. Initiaiiy, an order of status-quo was passed by the learned Civi! Judge, however, his application for temporary injunction was finally rejected with an obsen/ation that the plaintiff has filed no revenue records to demonstrate that the suit iand was recorded in his name or he was iri possession, whereas defendant No.4 is recorded as ovvner and /f^.. a ^^ t ~vw>' / v^ possession holder of the suit Jand in the revenue records such asv4<ha^ra Panchshala for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and B-1 of 2005-06. Thus, it has been found that the plaintiff is not in possession and he did not have any prima facie case, therefore, balance of convenience is a!so not in favour of the pjaintiff and no irreparable injury is likely to be caused to him. The above finding has been further confirmed bythe iearned AdditionaE District Judge^ Shri Parag Kotecha, iearned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the property in question through a registered sale deed from its recorded owner. Defendant No.4 js contempiating to alienate the suit property and create third party Interest and in these circumstances, the Courts be!ow ought to have passed at ieast an order of status quo with respect to possession of the suit property in order to avoid multipijdty of proceedings. However, the appljcation for temporan/ injunction has been rejected soiely on the ground that in the revenue records, defendant No.4 is shown as owner and possession holder ofthe suit property. Heard tearned counsel for the petitioner, perused the record as also the orders passed by both the Courts betow rejecting the petitioner's appiication for temporary injunction. The orders passed by both the Courts beiow are based on the documents avaiiable on record fi!ed by the respective parties. There is a concurrent finding that defendant No.4 is in possession of the suit property. So far as the argument that the Courts below ought to have restrained the defendants from alienating the suit property is concerned, any transfer during pendency of the suit by the parties will be ultimately goyerned by the final decree that would be passed in the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and therefore, the question of any irreparable injury to the petitjoner/plaintiff on account of that, does not arise. There is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictionaS error committed by both the Courts betow warranting interference jn exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Constitution of Jndia. The petition is wrthout any substance; the same deserves to be and js, accordjngly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge <\ <i.