/.y ^fis&^^ •^ y ^-—^'^ f/ gs._..,_ i 'teSSS®; S S3 S .\ Appellants/ Defendants W.P. (227LNo. 6837 OF 2011 1. Laxmi Narayan, S/o Shri Mahavir Mehar, aged about 30 years, 2. Thaaeshwar, S/o Shri Mahavir Mehar, aged about 27 years, 3. Rauiesh, S/o Bhuwan Mehar, aged about 36 years, 4. Ishwar, S/o Doinar Mehar, aged about 27 years, 5. Shatruhau, S/o Doinar Mehar, aged about 23 years, AU of Cultivator aad R/o Village Risda, P.H.No. 13, R.N.M. aiid Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur(C.G.). Radha Bai Wd/o Mehattar Mehar, Plaiatiffs aged about 45 years, 2, Laxmi Bai @ Lachliani Bai, D/o Metiattar Mehar, aped about 20 years, Both R/o Vfflage Risda, P.H. No. 1'3 P M M on/1 T'sl-ie^l R"1"f1" A.*^, i\.i'(. ivi. cu.jiLi i cxU.oll Ljcu\-/u.d. Bazar, District Raipuj- (C.G.). 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Cottector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION USDER ARTICLE 227 OP THB COHfSTITUTION OP (SB :Hon'bIe M».T.P.Sharma, J.) present:-Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate tbrthe petitioners. Ms. Saiigeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 1 & 2 not noticed. 1. By tbis petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners have chaUenged the legaUty and propriely of tlie order dated 25/6/2011 passed by First Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, (C.G.). in civil appeal No. 66-A/2011 whereby application filed under Section 151 Rule 4 offhe C.P.C. has been disinissed. 2. Mr. R.K. Shanna, Advocate for tiie petitioners & Ms. Saugeeta Mishra, P.L. forfhe State/respondent No. 3 are heard. 3. Order iinpugned perused. -z. ^ l^ 4. Decree for permaaent injunction has been granted against fhe petitioners, By filing application under Order 41 Rule 5 of tbe C.P.C. petitioners had earlier pleaded for stay ofexecution ofdecree which has been dismissed Uiereafter tliey have filed another application uilder Section 151 Rule 4 of fhe C.P.C. for restraiaini fhe respondents No. 1 & 2 froni aUenation of the properiy which has also been disnussed. 5. Considering the nature of decree aad fhe fact that aUenation subject out coine of fhe appeal, I do not find aay iUegaUty ia the order impugned requuiug any iuterference ia exercise of supervisoiy jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is Uable to be disiaissed and is hereby disniissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge