^!-1 XI-HG—78 311^1 ^iT h-H* wn <si^i siiii'd -t- TS^ -^l^ld^, (sitil'y4!®,fqcii'yy *11W1T tKHIcb "^.200 Sn^T 'q^RT (Tpf3^'ET) TOIIWdfe! 3iT^?t ton (c) N. 4780/07 Rajendr^ Prasad Jain, aged about 70 years, son of|Shri Roop Chaiid Jain, resident of Pendra poad, distt. Bilaspur (CG) RESPONDENTfS) 2. Suresh phand Jaia, aged about 35 years, soa of Shri | Roopchand Jaia, resident of Pendra Road, Djistt. Bilaspur (CG) State o|T Chliatdsgarh, fhrough the District CoUectot-, Distt. Bflaspur (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE; 18.03.2009 Shri Prakash Mishra, Shri Saifuddiu Rajas, Shri ShashaiikThakur, P With fhe consent ofthe pi This petition is directed| (Aniiexure P/l) passed by leEir| Road, Bilaspur, whereby appe^ been allowed and the drder ofl passed by the tirial Court in. favcj Leanied couri.sel for the after due consideration ofttte by the petitioner, had granted <oi<(i<!i<ili lfl*ici*f^ [s'<\ <^i4^I< ^aifinsn^iT 27 OF THE CONSTITUON OF INDIA coiltsel coulisel for fhe petitioner. for respoudent No. 1. '^ for fhe State/respondent No.2. 4rties, the matter is heard fiuaUy. agamst the order dated 15.6.2007 |ied Additional District Judge, Peudra ;^1 preferred by respondent No. 1 has teinporary injun.cti.ou (Aiinexure P/5) jur of fhe petitioner has been set aside. jietitiouer submits fhat fhe trial Court, ({cuinentery evideuce aiid affidavits filed [feiaporaiy uijujiction. iu favdyr of the ddcr -h ^^ XI-HG—78 ^5f '<(|A||<'1*|, yiiily'Ko, fawi'yy *ll*ldl »>*iieh • - ••"-^ 200 sf^v Traq7 ('^?f3^'ei) sn^v vi Rt-ii* ^TT 3TT^?T ?FRT^ TOiTW^ifOTan^i 2- petitioner with a fuidmg that he is ia possession. Uiereof. However, order set aside tlie weU considerl extraaeous grouiid. He furfher s1 recorded owner ofthe siiit laad, afSdavits iu his favour to fhe .eflf fhe petitiouer and he is iu posses) On flie other hand, lea| veheiaently argued fhat the consideration of fhe docunients fhe respective parties, has held clean hands before the Court, h^ facts in his pleaduigs; aad ttn]] jurisdictional error in flie weU coi Court warran.taig interference ia have heard learued coun^ teinporary UTJunction passed l( impugned order, aiid have gone tj parties. Leamed appeUate Court af|( mjuiiction passed by taial Coiutj erroneously held tttat respoudeu) petitioner over the suit land. petitioner/ plaiutifF has deliberal^ chi<ifCT<i1'T ^W^I "^f Ts^l <I<i<-$i< iraififHan^n fe recorded owner of fhe suit laad aiid the appeUate Court by the iinpugned ;d findnig of the trial Court on soiue llbinits that fhe petitioner is not only but his ofher brothers have also filed :ct that fhe suit property belongs to feiou thereof. (iied couusel for respondent No.l learned appellate Court on due ^.vailable on record aiid pleadtngs of piat the petitiouer did not conie wifh [ deUberately suppressed the inaterial ^, fhere is no illegality, iafinnily or tsidercd order passed by fhe appeUate ^xercise ofwritjurisdiction. ;1 for the parties, perased the order of |y leamed tt-ial Court as also the [irough the pleadings ofthe respective :r dealing wifh the order of teiaporaiy in detaU, has held that the trial has No.l acknowledged ownership ofthe It has been further held that the sly suppressed the inaterial' facts ia k + XI-HG—78 311^1 W l<!-f1+ ^V 3TT^?T shuiqt H T5ET "41'41d'4,e>tll<H'l<o, [a|<yll«y *11*1CTI ^,^|q, ••••••—•——•••• ••-—•^200 sn^i Tra^ (lcif^°<<it;T) TCIIW ^lf?^ CT^T 3 relation to the conditiou, undel property. Even relationship beto] 1 has uot been disclosed aild tarue facts before the Court. In] fhe petitioner was not entitted f] uijunction as he did not come w| After goiag Uirough fhe eonsidered opinion that the rea| Court for aUowmg the appealj record. Even otherwise, it is fhat trial is at fhe stage of p| consideration fhe overaU view o| by the appeUate Court, fhis illegality, iD.finnity or jurisdictioj waiTantiiig iaterference in exed 227 offhe Constitution oflndia.1 Consequently, IA No. 05 chl<iI<Tf<lhl tTTR^f tf f^st <P>1'^1< ^aifinsii^r ;|~ which he becarae owner of the suit 'een the petitioner and respondent No. PIUS, the petitioner has not produced Ifhese circumstances, it was held that f|3r the discretiouaiy relief of teniporaiy' ?lth cleaa hands before the Court. |m.pugned order, this Court is of tlle i^ons assigned by the leained appeUate are based on inaterial avaUable on st^.ted by leamed counsel for the pardes )(am.tiffs evidence. Thus, taking into )C fhe inatter aiid the reasons assigaed C(jurt is of the opiuion fhat there is no |ial error coinniitted by the Court below :ise of writ jurisdiction iinder Ai-ticle Accordiugly, the petition is disniissed. sfaiids disposed of. ^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge