HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P) {(3) No 3606 Of 2007‘ Petitioners 1. Praveen Kumar Dixit, S/o Dr. (Defendants) Laxminarayan Dixit, Aged about 35 yeays. 2. Dr‘ Laxminarayan Dixit, Aged about 60 year5, S/o Late ShambudayaE-Dixit. R/o of ViHage Boriya Khurdh. Teh. & Distt. Raipur (0.6.) Respandents 1. Dr. Shashi Sagar Verma, Aged (Plaintiffs) about 49 years, 8/0 Late Sagar Versus- Chand Verma, Rio Govind Nagar near Guru Hate}, Opp. to New Bus Stand, Raipur (C.G.) $hivendra Kumar Mahobiya, Aged about 34 years, S/o Late Bhaiya Ram Mahobiya. R/o Aadarsh Nasgar Kusha!pur. Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Shiv Kumal Mahobiya, Aged about 40 years, S/o Late Paras Ram Mahobiya, R/o Aadarsh Nagar Kushalpur. Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) wmr PETmoN wage ARTICLE 227 OF THE ceNSTrTu-nen or: mum r SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate forrthe petitioners. ORDER (Passed on this 27m day of June, 2007) 1. By this petition, med under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitionerstdefendants challenge the legality and vatidtty 9f the order dated 9.4.2007 passed by the 12’“ Additionai District JUdge' (FIG). Ratpur in Misc’ettaneous Ciyii Appeat No. 14!.2006. 2. The respondents/ptaintifts have tited a oivii suit for declaration and permanent injunction. in that pendtng Civi! Suit No. 20-N2005 (Dr. Shashi Saga; Verma & others \ls. Praveen Kumar Dixit & another), an appiicetion under arder 39 Rates 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civit Procedure was tiied by the ‘ respondente/plaintitfs, seeking interim iniunction against the @ §etitionersldefendanta on the ground that :he respondent's/plaintiffs are in pesaessian of the suit land. . Learned triai Court ( 6‘“ Civil Judge Class-l, Raipur) after having considered an the facts in detailed, came to the conctusion that prima facie the tespondentsiptaintifts are in possession of the suit lahd. theretore, during the pendency of the civii suit, it was found desirabie and necessary, t0 grant interim injunction against the petitioners vide order dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure PH). . Being aggrieved, the petitioners/defendants tiled misceilaneous civii appear before the District Judge. The 12m Additionai District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur vide impugned order dated 9.4.2007. passed in Misc. Civii Appeai No. 14/2006, after having examined aii the facts, affirmed the findings recorded by the triai Court and confirmed the erder dated 4.8.2006 passed by the triai Court. Having heard learned counsel fer the petitioners/defendants, examining the pieadings and documents, i am of the opinion that the Findings recorded by the Court below are based on cogent and weighty reasens. There is no’ infirmity, illegality er procedural errer in the impugned erder astc warrant interference by this Court in its supervisoryjurisdiction. . it is welt settled that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Constitution of lndia should refrain itseif from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, iliegaiity, irreguiarity or iurisdiotionai error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. . ln view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition, which deserves to be and is dismissed, summarily. Sdl- l A Thakur l Satish K.Agnihotri Judge