wwg a? aw h ;w O g r \0 i/ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATrIseARH AT BILAspug WRIT PETITION (227) NO. M31} /2009 PETITIONERS DEFENDANTS /1. EERSU§ RESPONDENTS / 1‘ PLAINTIFF Supado Biswas, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Sudhir Biswas, occupation — Medical Practitioner (Doctor), Smt. Shipra Biswas, aged about 30 years, wife of Shri Supado Biswas, occupation "— Domestic wife. Both R/o. Vill. Kapu, Tahsil Dhar‘amjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Jagdish Kurre, aged about 4-0 DEFENDANTS /2. Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distti Raigarh (CG) Kedar, about 50 years, son Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Het Ram, aged about M years, son of Shri Prasad Kurre, occupation -- Agriculture, R/o. Vill. Kapu, Majhapara, ”‘i'ah Ra m g yeare: son of Ram Prasad Kurre, occupation —- Agriculture, R/o. Vill Kapu, of Ram Prasaci Kurre, occupation — Service (Police Department) R/o. Punjipathra, P.S. & Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Udenath, aged about 4O yea rs, son Ra m of Shri Prasad,occupation — Service, R/o. VIH Kapu, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) /5. Shivnath, y€a I’S, SOn Prasad, occupation — Service, at Rural Bank — Shahdol (MP) R/o. VIH. Dharamjaigam, Raigarh (CG) aged about 38 of Shri Ram Kapu, Tah‘ Distt. Devlal, aged about 37 year's, son of Shri Ram Prasad, occupation — Service, R/o. Vili. Dharamjaigarh, Vibhor (Girhor) SchooL Dhara mjaigarh Distt. Raigarh (CG) Lokeshwar @ Raje5hwa r, aged about 36 year's, aon of Shri Ram Prasad Kurre, occupation Service, R/oi ‘ th‘rough Raigarh (CG) Coliector, Distt. Chandela Nagar, Biiaapur- (CG) State of ChhattiSgar'i'i, HIGH COURT OF CI-IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishm VVrit Petition (227) No. 4977/2009 PETITIONERS : Supado Biswas and another Versus RESPONDENTS : Jagdish Kurl‘e and athers Appearance: Shri AN. Bhakta, counsel for the petitioners. Miss. Sharmila Singhai and Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.1 . Shri R.S. Marhas, counsel for respondents No.4, 5 and 7. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, PL for respondent No.8. None for other respondents though served. VVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (08.02.2011) Return has been filed by respondent No.1 and respondent No.8. Learned counsel for respondents No.4, 5 and 7 submits that he would argue the matter on thejaasis of documents available on the record of the writ petition. (2) Heard finally with the consent ofthe parties. (3) This is defendants petition under Article 227 of the l Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the District Judge who has allowed the appeal preferred by plaintiff which in turn was preferred against the order of Trial Court refusing to grant W temporary injunction. The Appellate Court has thus allowed the (’2’ plaintiff’s prayer for grant of temporary injunction and has directed maintenar ac of status-quo by the parties during pendency 0fthe suit. (4) PlaintifT Jagdish Kurre has filed the suit for declaration, confirmation of possession, permanent injunction a for declaring the sae deed dated l3/07f2007 as void. According to the plaintiff area of 0.02 hectare bearing khasra No146/2 has bee sold b the defendants N.1 and 2 to the defendants No.3 and 4 vide sale deed dated 13/07/2007 without knowledge and coset of the plaintiff as ,well as the defendants No.5 to8 and the said rchasers started raising construction on the suit land in December, 2008 and when the plaintiff raised objection the urchasers started creating dipute. On his application Tahslr directed the urchasers to stop the construction work, however the defendats No.3 and 4 have got mutated teir names in the revenue records in an illegal manne. h r (5) According to the laintiff the suit land is the property o the joint famil and sale of ecific share of the joint family property withou partition is iegal. The application for temporary injunction was also filed on similar pleadings. The Trial Court rejected the prayer for grant of temporary injunction after finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. However, the V Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the plea ofdefendants ‘ No.3 and 4 about oral partition is not believable and none ofthe p f y sp / t ll nd l 0 n y o nn ‘ pu p s ida p n (3 ’ members of the joint family have made specific pleading that a paltition has been arrived at amongst the members of the joint family. Thus, the Appellate Court was of the View that in a case of present nature possession is not important because the joint family property has been sold without consent 0f other members. (6) Be that as it may and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it proper to dispose ofthe writ petition with a direction to the Trial Court to do well to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. This order is passed because the petitioner is already suffering the order of status-quo for last more than a year, therefore it would be in the interest of parties to get the dispute resolved as early as possible. (7) With this observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. / Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra i i Judge