XI~HC-22 mm mw 2910712004 Shn' Gau’mm Bhaduri, cc unsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has me this writ petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution o India, being aggrieved by the order th Civil Judge, Class —I, Raipur, on dated 17] 04/ 2004 passed by an application moved by the etitioner under Section 151 of the Coda of Civil Procedure in M.J.C.No.41/2002, whereby the petitioner requested that the re spondent herein he restrained from should not raise any construction prohibitOIy injunction that she on the disputed land. Bn'ef facts leading to ti ling of this petition ale that the No.126-A/99 in the Court of Civil petitioner moved a Civil Suit Judge for declaration and permanent injunction with respect to the land bearing 'Khasra No.569, a measuring 4204 sq.feet situated at round that he‘purchased the said Pandri Talia, Raipur., on the land through the registered s: ale deed in the year 1996. During the pendency of the Suit the defendants No. 4 and 5 in original suit died and no relief was c1aimed against them. The suit was pending trial for evidence. However, the petitioner suEered a major heart attack, therefore, the ci‘ilil suitiwas dismissed in default. .& » ,‘ XI-HC-22 m aiiwgso , ('1) WWI§WW $Wm However, later on the petitiom :r became a little bit stable in his health and moved an application for restoration of the civil suit under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Ct the meantime, the defendants party and one amongst those i: the petitioner moved an applicz herein from carrying out the cor learned Civil Judge has mentioned In para 6 of the order, the that it is not clear that the land which was purchased by Tara Devi is a disputed land and the construction is being raised on the disputed land and no aftidavi t has been tiled on behalf of any neighbourer or any other person indicating that the construction is taking place on the disputed land, therefore, no injunction can be granted. It is an admitted position petitioner was dismissed and a moved and the suit has not be Devi is not a party in that sui1: and as has been observed by the )de of the Civil Procedure. But, in sold the disputed land to a third s the respondent herein. Therefore, Ltion for restraining the respondent lskuction. I have heard learned coul Lsel for the petitioner. that the suit which was tiled by the pplication for restoration has been en restored and even so far, Taia f§ x 4’, z ‘ leamed Civil Judge that it is not clear that Tana Devi is raising construction on the disputgd land. Thsrefore, in the above d;ir'cumstances, I‘ am of the opinion that by rejecting the applicatimp of the petitioner, the learned trial Court has not committed any ' ‘egality or passed any order without jurisdiction. “Therefore, I do n t nnd any justiiication to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226/ 27 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned o er. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is di missed; In View ’ of ‘ this o er, M.W.P.No.1640/2004' and I‘.A.No.4341/2004 stand dispo ed of. $1M Mu