\ \^. ^.^ :..-•" : ^^^"^ ^ y-:A ^^" IN_THE HIGH COURT OF ^ AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No.^ <? ^7 /2008 PETITIONER Plaintiffs RESPONDENTS 'jl. Defendants f2. \3. \ rf< ^- F ^-6- ^r. .\»^?--7. ^<te^1" ^^y s •s>' "^ .^ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Laxmiprasad Gupta, aged about 70 years, S/o Late Haridayal Gupta, R/o Main Road, Korba C.G. VERSUS Mahavir Agrawal, S/o Rajkumar Agrawal Kailash Kumar Agrawal, aged about 27 years, S/o Raghubar Prasad Rishikumar Agrawal, S/o Khayaliram Agrawal Lakhanlal Dewangan S/o Tulsi Ram Sonkunwar W/o Tulsi Ram G Appal Swami S/o Suryanarayan Savitri Devi W/o Jee Appal Swami Sanjay Kumar Pandey S/o Dr. B.L. Pandey Kanchhedi Lal Yadav S/o Radheshyam Yadav J.P.Singhal S/o Mishri Lal Agrawal Bharat Lal Dewangan S/o Bahoran Dewangan, All are R/o Tah Korba , Distt. Korba(C.G.) ,^ ,<_ ^ ^ ^ C.D. Jangare, ^aS^S^^^^^ WQ^ District Collector office Korba. J.R. Chaurasia, Tahsildar Korba, Tah 85 Distt. Korba. Ram Govind Gobhil Revenue Inspector Korba, Tah 8& Distt. Korba. Indrapal Singh, Patwari Halka No. 4 Korba, Tah & Distt. Korba. The State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Korba, Distt. Korba WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^ 1^?^ ^^ V COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •S.B: Hoii9ble Shri Prashaiit Kiimar Mishra PETITIONER Writ Petition (C) No. 777/2008 : Laxiniprasad Gupta Versiis RESPONDENTS : Mahaw Agrawal and others Appearance: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for respondents No.l to 5 & 7. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel La\v^-'er for the State/respondent No.16. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CX)NS_T1T1JTION_QFJNDIA ORAL ORDER (26.08.2010) In a sult seeking decree for declaration and permanent iiijunction, the Trial Court rejected th©plaiiitiffs application for grant oftemporar>7 injunction by its order dated 7/07/2007. The Appellate Court has also dismissed plaintiffs appeal uuder Order 43 •(1) (r) of CPC. This petition is directed against the said Appellate Order passed on 16/01/2008. "-- (2) The interim order passed by this court on 7/02/2008 directed that no construction to be carried out on the land in dispute, till the next date ofhearing. The said order is still continuing. (3) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that because of the interim order passed by this court, the Trial Court is not ,^'" 1^ '^^^'K- ^ %1—^ ^- Y ^ proceeding ahead with the suit, however counsel for the petitioner strongly refutes this submission. (4) Be that as it may, since the iuterim order passed by this court is continuing for last more than 2 1/2 years, the present petition is disposed ofwith a directioii to the Trial Court to dispose ofthe suit as early as possible aiid preferably within a period of six moiiths from the date ofproduction ofcertified copy ofthis order. (5) It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe case and that the Trial Court shall decide the suit on its own: merits on the basis ofevidence available on record, however it is turther directed that the interim order granted by this court shall continue during pendency ofthe suit. (6) If.for any reason the suit is not disposed of within period of six months, it vvill be open for the respondents to move this court seeking variance ofthe order passed by this court. (7) . Petition is fmally disposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^