t c^...-"^7' m TJBB SXGS CO£?RTo^ C^FMAyTJSOA^H ^mmcAiTvs^ AT wi^ajpim M.A. Ayy&X.S.AWt DSySN^^NT ..^•^ •^- fi6 .^r ^gi&&"~ ^•^ /J3^0» t>ev Prasad S/o Mohitram Cast Satnami, Aged 42 years, J?/o Village Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur mstrict BilctSpur (C.G) .^ MSSSJPON^KNtS y^AfNTtry ^ VSKBffB -: I. Atal ShrivastaVf S/o Late J.P. Shrivastav.Aged 40 years, R/Oy Tilaknagarjn front Of Chhctttisgarh Bhawan^Bilaspur Tahsil Ss District Bilaspur ( C.G.) ssy&NQAyt 2.3iate of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector^ Bilaspur, District Bilaspur ( C.O.^ jwscMuureoirs APJ SX| cwjoy^ QRJD§E»4a MSW 1 (rt O^CiTOCWOa ireE?COi^ ^w^- fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra M.A. No. 124/2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Dev Prasad Versus Atal Shrivastav and another Appearance: Shri Atul Pandey, counsel for the appellant. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.2. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ORALORDER (19.07.2010) This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC has been preferred to challenge the order passed by the trial court allowing respondent/plamtiffs application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. (2) Leamed counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial court has not properly appreciated the pleading and material available on record and has wrongly recorded the finding with regard to existence ofprima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. He submits that fhe appellant is in possession ofthis land and the finding recorded by the / - ' / trial court that respondenVplaintiffis in possession is not correct. ,^.^N^ .^.^ '^, S€ ^sa-. \ ?^^^ ^'.^ ^^. '^1,^/;' ^^^.^•:^,^;^^. 4^J ^-^ (3) Leamed counsel for respondent No.l, while supporting the order passed by the trial court, has strenuously urged that the finding with regard to possession and existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irrepamble loss has been recorded in favour of the plaintiffafter due appreciation ofthe material submitted by both the parties and that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order which does not call for any interference. (4) On pemsal ofthe impugned order and documents available on record, this court is satisfied that the trial court has meticulously discussed tfie pleadings made by the parties and the af&davits submitted by the plaintiff as well as the defendant while reaching to the conclusion that the plaintifiF deserves grant of temporaiy mjunction. (5) The trial court has rightly considered the deed of consent executed by the defendant/appellant in favour of the plaintiff on 22/01/08, which was basis for recording ofthe plaintiffs name as owner in the suit property. The trial court was also ofthe opinion that the pleadings made by the defendant No.l/appellant does not make any allegation that the sale-deed and deed ofconsent in favour ofthe plaintiffare forged document. (6) It is settled law that an appeal against grant of temporary injunction is basically an appeal against exercise of discretion in / which the appellate court is only required to examine whether the '^ .\ ^..%\ '^"-^^^ -^' trial court has appreciated three pillars of grant of temporary injunction namely existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in its tme perspective and in proper and effective manner or not. (7) Since the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the finding recorded by the trial court, this court does not find any ground for interference in this appeal. (8) Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (9) Leamed counsel for the appellant has informed that the suit has already reached to the stage ofrecording ofevidence. (10) In view ofthis, it is directed that the trial court shall do well to dispose ofthe suit as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order by the appellant before trial court. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^