r~' ^'^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, / CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION f227) OF ^^<&2009 PETITIONER Defendant No.l Ratan Sai, aged about 45 years, S/o. Shri Mangal Sai, Caste: Gond, R/o. Village ....•<^'<A<r*^' Sanchi, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, rl.L^"f^J[K':"' District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ^•^"J^..\-'"* ^^c·"'^^^0..1.··l·">"<" ^^:;..3:-0-1-" ^ VERSUS RESPONDENT N0.1. Pawan Sai, aged about 70 PLAINTIFF N0.1 years, S/o. Gangaram, RESPONDENT N0.2 DEFENDANTN0.2 RESPONDENT N0.3 PLAINTIFF N0.2 Motiya Bai, W/o.Sita Ram, 40 years, R/o. Village Sauki, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh Kamal Sai, aged about 50 years S/o. Pawan Sai, RESPONDENT N0.4 PLAINTIFF N0.3 RESPONDENT N0.5 PLAINTIFF N0.4 RESPONDENT N0_^6 PLAINTIFF N0.5 ^-' RESPONDENT N0.7 DEFENDANt N0.3 Arjun, aged about 46 years S/o. Pawan Sai, Sikandar, S/o. Pawan Sai, aged about 43 years Respondents No.l, 3 to 5 all Are by Caste: Gond, R/o. Village Sanchi, Police Station and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh Kaushalya, D/o. Pawan Sai, aged about 40 years, R/o. Village Pahadbulla, P.S. & Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Collector, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF. MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/WRITS OR ORDER/ORDERS OR DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OF THE LIKE y 3^i.'^?I^^Nt ^iT^lt^'iN^ 1 '^rraM^/ '^jtwrg', t^iray ^,p.C 3.2-7^ A/o. 30^/^9 ^ww^sqr^' •^ 200 ^fl^^('rt^^) ^RfeT^f 'RT^ff ^ fe^t ^N^R ^^^H 311^1 SB; 28-7-2009 Shri Sushil Dubey,j Shri B'asm-i Bhad-j lAdvocate, for the petitioner. piri along witn Ku. Saiigeeta Misl-ii'a, Panel Lawyer, for the St^te. Heard on admissioli. 2. The instant, peU^i is directed against the order dated 21-4-2009 passed in IInd Additional District <J whereby and whereu^der, tfae appeal prefen-ed by the petitioner herem has b^en dismissed affimiing the order of temporai^7 mjunction ijassed by the trial Court vide order dated 17-3-2009 m Civi^ 3. Brief facts of the filed by the plamtifij Misc. Cml Appeal No. 6/2009 by fudge, (FTC) Surajpur, Distt. Sm-guja SuitNo. 19A/2006. base are that U-ie Civil Suit ha.s been agaiiist tlie petitioner and the respondent No. 2 seeki^g the relieffor declaration with regard to tiUe of suit property |aiid permanent mjunction, along with an application for te|iiporaiy mjunction to restrain the defendants from mteri'4'ence in their possession over tlie suit property till decision of|:he suit. ^7<T^N ^IT^ K^^^T I^-SS^SM—FS/95—-11 /2008—1,00,900. .^:^ ^ ^ !81® 1 % ^ ^ ^ •^^' ^f ",^ ^ -1^^ ^? k-ife •<?^3^^%'.i'W >/'' ^^f^PTTc^, ^ftW^, 'f^iTOy i,/.,P.Cz^ Nb. 3 888. W^^W^f^ '"^ 200 .gq^TR^Cq^^) ^I^K^fN-^i^? ^iqfe^T-qi^ "^ ^^^^ ^•^H^?^T 4. The trial CoUtrt h^ving found prima facie case, balance of convenience in favDi^r of the plaintifis and also that irrepai'able mjury w^dld be caused to tlie Fiailltiirs? if temporary inji-mction i^ not grai-ited iii their favour, allowecl flie application filed bj' the plaiiitiffs, tliereby tfae defendant •No. 1/petitioner hereii|i was restraiiied from mterference in tlie possession of the si|iit property. The petitioner went in iii'st appeal which was also q2 5. SIiri Dubey, lear4ed counsel for the petitioner submits that. the order is bad asj plea of the petitione]1 statement witli regai'd Hindu Succession Act ismissed by fhe flrst appellate court.. the trial Court has not considered the taken m pai'a 16 of the Vi,7ritten :o the applicability of.law whether the ^vould. apply or old Hmdu law would apply. He further subnjiits that both tlie Courts below have i erred in not consideriii^ that tlie defendaat No. 2 was only havmg Mmited mterest committed illegality. 6. I have heard leaiii. in tiie suit property and, therefore, d counsel fcr 'the parties perused tlie impugiied order an4 found no merit in the contention of the petitioner. at tliis st^ge. The points which Sm-i Dubey i.s raismg ai'e the points -^hich would be decided by tlie &ial ?m-^-T ^UWir^fTO^TTa—FS/95—11 /2008-1,00,000. ^T N^N ^T^?^l^t^ (i.. B^ ";:qPTf^R, i^1~9Ti^ 'I^IRTy ^^Cz^}N^3S8&/65 ^w^a. ,-t.,»o—5<^»<..l<,..,.A^<-»«7*<,,»^,-», .('^3^^) i^^R^^^it^r Court during trial bas^' Dubey failed to .poii^i committed by the ti-ial leading to manifest inji^i extraordinar^'- jurisdicti| the Constitution of ludiii, inji^stice 7. The petition has ijio merit. The same liable to be aiid is hereby dismissed. ^Plfepfr? ^FI^f ^ fe^ ^N^R ^•^to 311^1 ^d on evidence on its owii merit. Shri out any illegality or irregularity Cotirt m passing the uiipugiied order to the petitioner so as to invoke on of tliis Court under Article 227 of Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^^^^ ^T4 K^JTs^^ <5^<-li^S<^—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000.