HIGH eOURTOFGHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR SB: HON'BLESHRISATISHK.AGNIHOTRI.J. WRITPETITION N0.2247 OF 2007 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF Smt. Dipika Bhatia, aged 39 years, W/o. Shri Naresh Bhatia, R./o. 946-B, Civil Lines, Raipur, District-Raipur.CG. Versus RESPONDENT DEFENDANT State ofChhattisgarh, through the Gollector.Raipur, CG. ; s ...^. Shri Ashish Shriyastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Gpvt. Advocate forthe State. ORALORDER (Passed on 11th April 2007) " By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 11-1-2007 (AnnexureP/4) passed by VI Ith Civil Judge, Class -II, Raipur, rejecting the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 pf the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") in pending Civil Suit No.1-A/2007and order dated 7-2-2007 (Annexure P/5) passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Ralpur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.1/2007 rejecting the appeal and upholding the order dated 11-1-2007 (Annexure P/4) passed byVllth Civil Judge, Class -II, Raipur. i . , The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in fhe suit property situated at Nazul Land Block No.14, Plot No.2area 6.600 squarefeet. The petitioner has filed an application for interim injunction i.inderOrder 39, Ruls 1 t- \' 4. 5. and 2 ofthe Codewherein respondent/State has raised an objection that initial!y order for removal of encroachment against Subhash Goya! who was in possessipn of the suitland, had already been executed.' Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur, after hearing both parties, came to the conclusion that after removatofthe encroachment, the petitioner has again &ncroached the suit land. The possession is in dlspute, batance ofconvenience and irreparable Ipss is not in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 11-1-2007 (Annexure P/4). Petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur, fited an appeal bearing Misc. Civil Appeal No.1/2007. Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, after hearing both theparties at length, confirmed the findings recorded by the Civil Court and dismissed the appeal yide order dated 7-2- 2007 (Annexure P/5) 1 have heard the iearned counsel appearing forthe parties, perused pleadings, orders passed by the Courts below and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that it is not a case of clear possession of the petitioneron thesuit land. The petitioner ha'd encroached on the suit land i.e;, admittedly the Government land and the possessionof the petitioner on the suit land is in dispute and there is no permanentstructure on the land. Thus, the orders passed bythe Courts beloware unexceptionable. It is well settled principle of law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction ofjudicial review of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings based on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of law or thers is grave faiiure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. -•5- Further, this Court can also entertain the petition in its superyisory jurisdiction if there is perversity, irregularity or illegality iri the process of decision, not in the decision itself. 6. Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it does not warrant to interfere with the decision passed by the Court below. 7. Thus.this petition is dismissed. No orderas to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Jud^e <• v^