HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BIIASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 57QS_Qf2008 ^. PETITIONER (Defendaut No. 1) RESPONDENT8 (Plamtilt^) Defendant No. 2. Dayaldas Baghel, son of Basawan Baghel, aged about 52 years, Occupation ^riculturist, resident of village Kunra, Sub Tehsil Nandghat, Tehsil Nawagarh, District Durg (CG). VERSUS 1. Kapil, son ofKartik Satnami, aged about 53 years; 2. Santosh, son ofKartik Satnami, aged about 50 years, Both are Agriculturists by oocupataon, residesit of village Hardi, Tehsil Nawagarh, District Durg (CG). 3. State ofChhattisgarh, fhrough the Collector, Durg; (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARHCLE 227 OF 'l'HE CONSIIIUriON OF INDIA) rSB: Hon'bleMr.SatishK.Asiahotri.J.) Fresent : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Ms. A.8. Sisodiya, Advocates ft>r the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for Aie State. OMALORDER 's~ 1. 2. 3. (Passed on 15"' day of October, 2098) With the consent ofthe parties^ the matter is laken up fbr hearing finally. The petitioner has preferred this petition impugning the order dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Additional District Judge, Bemetara in Miscellatieous Civil Appeal No. 15/07, whereby the appeal of the respondents No. 1 and 2 against Ae order dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P/2), passed by the First Civil Judge, Class II, Bemetara, rejecting their application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 oftbe Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), was allowed. The indisputable facts, m nutshell are, that the petitioner filed a civil suit fbr declaration, permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule /^^€"v^ I %ll®R5'&. tt ^^sy^ ^ ;S- 'w';^ land on the ground that the plaintiffs acquired the said laxid under Will as well as sale deed, executed by their father in the year 1973 and 1987 respectively. The names of the plaintiffs were atso recorded m the mutation records. The appeal was preterred by the petitioner/defendaiit No. 1 before the Sub Divisional Officer, whereby, the petitioner's name was directed to be recorded asjoint holder ofthe land. The First Civil Judge Class II, iaitially granted injunction m favour ofthe plamtiffs/respondents under Order 39 Rule 3 ofthe CPC on 13.06.2007. The same was vacated cn 13.07.2007 after the petitioner/defendant No, I entered appearance. The trial Court, thereafter, dismissed the application filed by the plaintifits/respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 <& 2, on the ground that in the appeal, pending before the Additional Collector, stay order has been granted on 20.04.2006. Thus, it was not neoessary for fhe trial Court to pass any ofher interim order. The Additional District Judge, Bemetara, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal, noticed that the order dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P/2) was passed without applying niind by the trial Court. The Court of Axlditicmal Collector was not competent to pass any order in respect of possession, or otherwise; as provided under Order 39 Rules l & 2. It was further held that fhe plaintiffs were in possession ofthe plaint sehedule laad for a long period and the balance of convenience was also m their favour. Thus, the appeal was allowed and order dated 11.10.2007, passed by the trial Court, was set aside. Accordingly, interim mjunction was granted in favour ofthe plaintiffs/respondents. 7. The petitioner has filed this petition on the ground tfaat in case of temporary interim injunction passed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 ofCPC, the appellate Coyrt should not consider the matter, but fhe same may be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consaderation before passing the temporary injunction. In support of his contention, leamed counsel for the petitioner rellied on a decision of Supreme Court in the matter of N.R. Dongre and Others Vs. Whiripool Corporation and Another, wherein, it was held that the mference in the appeal would be calJed for only if the conclusioti that the exercise of discretion m favour of fhe plaintifls was contrary to the settled principles tbr the grant 6f a temporary injunction or that it is arbitrary or perverse. 8, It is a case where it appears Ihat tiie findings was arbitmry aad perverse, as the trial Court without applying ite mind and without looking into the nature ofthe stay order granted by tiie Additional Collector, declmed to pass any order on the application fited by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. Thus, the decision in the matter of N.R. Dongre (Supra) may not be ofany assistsuice to the petitioner in tfae facts and circumstances ofthe instant case where perversity is writ large m the order passed by the trial Court. 9. I am of the considered opinion that Ihe impugned order is unexceptionable and does not warrant aiiy interference. Tfae Court below has rightly set aside the order passed by the trial Court and granted injunction, after having reached of the eonclusion that tiie balance of conveoience was in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, as Ihey were in continuous possession ofthe plaint schedule land for a long period. 1996 (5) SCC 714 10. This Court, m exercise ofits supervisoryjurisdictionunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refmin itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except 'm such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the fece of the record, which is not in the present case. 11. 1 do not find any irregularity, iafirmily or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Court below. The order isjiist, proper and warrante no interference. This petition is accordingly, dismisKsed. No order as to 12. Sahu , \ ) costs. ConsequenfSy, I.A. No. 01, application for granit ofinterim reliefand IA. No. 2, application for slaying the effect and operation ofthe order dated 07.07.2008, also stands disposed of. Sd/- Safish K. Agnihotri Judge