HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT FETITIOK ( 2271 HO. 4911 OF 201 1 PBTITIONERS Plaintiffs RESPONDBNTS Defendants 1. 2. VERSUS 1. 2. 4. Saajay Singh, S/o Shri Raagnath Q-'n/y'h n."--=/1 "1-fs->-!+ O^. Tr-a*-*-*^ ^JUL, tl^Ol-t. CtUUULt Ot-i j'OcU.S, Occupation Busiuess, R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Daaganiya, Raipur (C.G.). Thakur Sbailesh Singh Kushwaha, S/o Late Shri Shivsingh Kushwaba, aged about 42 years, Occupation busiaess, R/o D0158, M.R. Colony, Ta^ore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), Raninarayau Baghel, S/o Shri Thakur Ram Baghel, Occupation Physics Vibhagaadhyaksh, R/o Pt. Ravishankar Vishvavidyalay Parisar, Aamauaka, Raipur (C.G.j. Snit. Anusuiya, W/o Shri Ramaarayau Baghel, Occupation Geograpby . Vibh^aadhyaksh, R/o Pt. Ravishaakar Vishwavidyalay pansar, Aainaaaka, Raipur (C.G.). Rajkuinar Shanaa, S/o Shri Khushirain Sharma, R/o House No. B-18, Vasundhra Nagar, Changorabhatha, Raipur (C. G.). Ths Stafe of /~t"h IT-I-H-; GI/TOT.I-I ^•iJJj.cli.U.o^cU II, Through: CoUector, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OILTHB CONSTITUJ-KMI OjF INDIA. sHon'Me Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 4 on advance notice. Respondents No. 1 to 3 not noticed. ^ ORAL-ORDER (Passedoa 29/08/2011) 1. By fhis petition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the legaUty and propriety of the order dated 29/7/2011 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. CivU Appeal No. 12/11 af&rming the order dated 5/4/2010 passed by 12th Civil Judge Class-2, Raipur ia civil suit .^;" '•.. ^....^- :iy""s -,<'1 £ ..„ '5a 1a -^ '~~^;vs^"''" *^ §? '^.^sy '"''^'vsss^1'' A No. 339A/08 rejectuig the appUcation for grant of temporary injunction fUed iinder Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read wifh Section 151 of fhe Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. Shri Malay Kuniar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioners 8s Sbri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 4 are heard. 3. Copy of fhe plamt, copy of the written stateinent ffled on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2, copy of separate written stateiaent filed on behalf the respondent No. 3 and both the orders impugned perused. 4. Onler impugned and copy of the pleadiug clearly reveal that bofh fhe parties are in possession of their own land, Court below has iadicated fhat dispute of identification of laad. In these circuinstaaces under fhe garb of injunction owner of the property cannot be deprived for its enjoynient. By disinissing the appUcation ffled for grant of temporary iajunction by the petitioners and disiaissiag fhe appeal both the Courts below have not conunitted aay iUegality requiring any iaterference in exercise of supervisoiy writ jurisdictioa, I do not find aay substance ia the petition. ConsequenUy, petition is liable to be disinissed and is hereby disinissed at the stage of admission itself. 5. I.A. No. 01 is also dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma , Judge