"-SSSSS '^fi-V 8 JJ ^''j?-^' ^7 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA^UR w.p.dia'n no. 3756/2011 PBTITIONBRS: DEFENDANTN.l DEF-BNDANT N. 3 RBSU'ONDBMTB PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT N0. 2 DEFENDANT N0. 4 DEFENDANT N0. 5 1) 2) VERSira 1. 2) 3) 4) Kaxam Singh S/o Sri Axiant Raia Telii, aged about 90 ycars R/o ViBage Bade Bhandar, Tahsfl Passan, Distrfct Ra^arh (C.G.). Sardha Ram S/o. Karam Snigh aged about 52 years, R/o ViD^e Badc Bhandar, Tahsil Passan, District Raigarh (C.G.). Raag tal S/o Shri Karam Singh Caste Tcli, agcd sd>out 60 years, R/o ViU^c Bade Bhandar, Tahsfl. Passaa, District Raigarh (C.O.). Saheb Ram S/o Karam Singh agal about 52 years, Sundcr lal a S/o I»»aramSu»ghayed about 55 ycars, AU are R/o ViIIagp Bade Bhandsa-, TAsU P&ssaa, District Ra^aA State of Chhattfegarh Through CoBectcu- Raigarh, Dfetrict Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PBTITIOH UNDER ARTICLB227 OF THE C!OMST[TUTICTI f INDIA. (SB :H®a'bIeMr. TJP.Storma, J.) Present:- Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sumit Jhanwar, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 not notieed. ORAL-ORE®R (Passedon 14/07/2011) By this petition under Article 227 ofthe Constituttoa oflralla pctitfonMs have chaUeiiged thc legalily and propriety ofthe oider datcd 30/3/2011 passed by 3rd Addltional District Judgc (F.T.C.) Raigarh (C.G.) in imscellaneous civfl appeal No. 02/2011 reversing the order dated 29/1/2010 pMaud by 18t Civil Judge Class-II, Ra^arh (C.G.) m civfl suit No. 78-A/2009 whcrely trU Court has refused for grant of injunction undcr Order 39 Riile 1 & 2 of the CivU Procedure Code, by aBowiag appeal 3^ Additional Distriet Judge (F.T.C.) Raigarh (C.G.) bas graated injunctton against the petitioners aitd restramlng feom. interfeFence fix>xa possession and aUenatioa. 1 •: ;.!.<.,tsi ;.:;^. Si :'^a^""ii " i- ^ 2. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for fhe petitioners and Sfcri Sumit Jhaawar, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 4 are hea»d. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitkiners Aows the copy of appMcation for iajunction and copy ofplaint. 4. Leamed counscl for the petitioaers is direeted to fite photocoiy of afoaesaid documcnts during course offhc day. 5. Copy offhe application. for injunction and copy of the plaint pcrused. 6. As per plaint plaintiff tias clauacd mjuaotion Bestramtog dcfendant fi'om seUing/alienatton of thc suit property. They have not ddimed mjunction restrauung to possession. 7, Leamed counsel for thc petitioners also submits ffaat at pTeseat fhcy are aot seUiag or intent to seU the suit propcrty, 8. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioneralso submits that in csese: ofaay need to seU respondcnts are ready to file appUcation for permissioa to sdl befwe the trial Court. 9. On thc other hand, tearaed counscl for the State/respoiMtent No. 4 opposed the pctition. 10. In thc aforesaid cucuinstances wifhout issuancc of noticc to (hc re^oxtdeats No. 1 to 3 order dated 30/3/2011 passed by 3td Additioiial Dtetrict Judge (F.T.C.) Raigarh (C.G.) in iniscellaneous civU appeal No. 02/2011 is modlfied to the extent fhat petitioners shaU not alieaate the propcrty diuing peadency of trial without permission of the trial Court, wifh these observattons petitfon is stands disposed of. 11. I.A. No. 01 Mdismissed. ,-— Sd/- ^ Noorderastocoste. Tp.Sharma \ <^ r