^^^^»-»^.^^,.^»^^»^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BltJ^PU^R Slngle Beneh : Hoii'btftMr. JustlG^Pritltilcer Dlwaker Writ Petltten 0271 No, 140&or 2009 PETITIONER PLAiNTiFF RESPONDEMTS/ DEFENDATtTS Sanjay Kumar Khetan, S/o Laxman Prasad Khe*an, Aged about 40 yssrs, R/o 10, North Ayenue, Choubey Gotonyr Ratpui'; Tehsii & DistrictRaipur(C.G.) Versus 1. Mohammad Yunu^ Umranl, S/^ Abdui Habbbi UmraRi, A@ed about 44 yeare, R/o MaRdi Gate, PandarJtaFl, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, C.G. 2. Shahict Ahmad Raja, S/o Lata Abdui Haktm, Aged about 38 years, R/o Chhotaj^sra, Ratpur, Tehsit & District RaipUF (C,G,) Shri SatyenctFa Sahu, counsel for ttie petttieneF. Shri Kshitiz Sharma, counsei for respondents. WRTT PETITIONUI*©ERAirFiaidE12T€31?TNE CONSTiTUTiONOFiNmft ORDER (30.04.20W WJth the eonsent o? »epartiest matter i®hesirci firmlly. Challenge in this writ pe^^a js to the ordeF ctated 03.02.2009 passsd by 2nd AdditionaS Dsstrsct Judge, Raipur, in Mtec. Civil Appeal No, 12/^08 by whfeh ttie appe^l prefeTred by the defendants under Order 43 Rute 1 was a1!owedandth^c^e.wa®-r@rrritte^baGktothetFiatCfi>yrtfer the demape^ioCT report of the land irr dispv^ and ttien jf requirect to consider the injunction applicaEtoR^aft-esh; Conterrtion of Shri Sahy; counset for the petttoner is that the ctemaFeatton h®dalreacty foeeit doiieancfctherafore there was no occaston for th@ trial Court to ctirecst fro" the fresh demarcation and th®&to reeoRsid®^tl^ applfe^ under OrdeF 39 Rule& 1 and 2 of tha Cocte" s( CNI Procedure. Therefoce" the ordep impu@necl caroiot b^ sustaHted On the ottier hand, Shri Kshitiz ShaFroa, COUITS©Ifor frierespondeRtesyppoFlingtheoFcteFimpyps^submltethat there i®no^ iltegaltty ln the OF^®R impvgR®^ hte fvrthw submitstbafcifttiedemai'cationreportis^tM'oughtonrecord.lt woulct rather meet tt>e jrrterest ©fjustie^ Aecoi^h'i^ demarGation report is ctire©tec^to b& brousht^on re©ordafwl thenthe lnjuncti@nappUcattORsha{tate©-beGORsi€teFect. 1 havehearcl couitsetfor the papH©saRApeFU®e^1h©fc m^eriNayaUabte£j0^reccM^.Th@Ee is.no jttegaUty^^^^^^^^ OTder jmpugned nor t^ ^ ai"^ eFFor appar©rrt©nfa©© of the reeoFct waFFapttat irrterfoyenee^tow thi^ Oourt vnct©rArtid^ 227 of the Constitu^on of India. The p^Jti@R bewif wthout syb8tw»e»te liabte t& toa dismj®sedan^itishere^dtemj®§@^ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge Dubey