HIGH COURT 9F CHEATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 E : H0kVELE SHE! J3STICE PRITENKER DIWAKER 1 ww. 1m. 12273 187212009 Vijay Shankar Sahu: $jo. Shn‘ Bheamssn $31111, aged about 39 yeafs Kmhayalai Sahu, S/o. Shri BEesmsen Sahu, agad about 28 years Both residems of Nagar, Surajpur, RS. & T611551 $urajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) PETITIGNERS l . Versus ‘RESP&NDEET$ 1. Vishok Lai, S/o. Shme Bh€emscn Sahu, aged about 30 yEars Kaushalya avi, Bheemsen aged about years Bheem$€n S] o. Gurbhali, aged about 60 yaars All rio. Viilage $ahupara, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) State of Cbhattisgarh, through the Collactor, Distt. Surguja (CG) W Wjo.’ 55 f‘rv RIT PETETEON UNDEE ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA égpeaxance: Shri N. Naha Rov counssl for tho petitioners. Shm‘ Arun Sac, éovt. Advocate for t Stat > oRAL oRnER (10.04.2009) _ Hean‘l on the question of admission. D he e. .l, The cng€ in mis pstitlon '. the impLgnal ordm“ ated 0 O 2009 passed by th» §acond AddmGnai Emil-Act udg jpur, D1¢ft ‘hnguja m N A No 01/2009 herab 6 OLrk below has dmmlgmd the appeal preferred y the ’ners under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of C1v11 rocedur. Th contention of ‘the learned counsel for the etitioners s at in the said appeal he had impugned the ality of te order ciated 2. 12.2008 by which their pplicati for iant of injunction was Iejecteci. Accding to the petitioner, earlier also hie application: nder Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rant o empomy injunction was rejected. However, the iiioners again reneweci their appiication for graht of emorary injution, 'mvokihg provisions of Section 52 of anr of Property Act read with Section 151 of the de of Cil Procedure. It is this application, which was rejected on 2.11.008 and; then the appeal preferred against he s has also been dismissed. There is a concurrent fding of facts in three orders passed by the Courts helow rjecting the applications for grant of temporary injunction. e ile considering these three applications, the Court elow ha coidered the principles governing the law of emporary njunction and after going through all the orders, do not find prent to be a iit case where interference can made nder rticle 227 of the Constitution of India. It is quite evidet tha there is no ermr apparent on the face of record wch ca arrant interference by this Court under Arle 227 of e Constitution of India tic th ,uq hall€ d 9 2 ‘J€ (FTL) Emm Wy m C b petlmo Pe e p i th Vid h aon g or u g f t pet tp nc the Trsfe Co vi 2 t ame in Wh b s ns t i I se be u A n t hi n w \ c37r- I find 110 marks in the Gags. Accon'dngly the petition is 3 dismissed. However, it is made cle that if any £indmg has been given by the Court below in the oniers. impugned dated ’09.02.2009 85 2.12.2008, the same would be for the limited purpose of deciding the mjunction a'gpplication and appeal. It is worthwhile to mention here that 'the Court below will not be influenced by ally such iinding. e w Sd/. ‘\ / Pritinker Diwaker Judge A ‘ 1 i E ’