IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION f227^ N0. ^1=2009 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF -v.0^'.^-".. t'-^C.^^ ^.^^- ^Loknath S/o. Shri Bhakla Satnami, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Thengabhat, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT ^DEFENDANTS ..^^^ / ^ Paretan S/o. Chhotku Satnami, aged about 45 years, Santan Son of Chhotku Satnami, aged about 43 years, 3. Shivcharan S/o. Chhotku Satnami, aged about 41 years, Atl are R/o. Village Thengabhat, Tahsjl Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The District Collector, Durg (C.G.). ^' WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER PLAiNTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Writ Petition (2271 No.2ei4 / 2009 Loknath Versus Paretan and others. Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the petftioner. Shri Manish Upadhyay, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. Ku. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. forthe State/respondent No. 4. WRIT PETmON UNDER ART1CLE 227 OF THE CONSTrrvriON OF INDIA ORALORDER (25.03.2010) tn the present writ petltion under Articte 227 of the Const'rtution of Isidte challenge has been thrown to the orders passed by the two Courts below rejecting the petitioner's / plaintiffs applteation under Order 39 Rute 1 & 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. (2) On perusal of the order passed by the trial Court on 11-08-2008 (Annexure P/10) and the order passed by the appellate Court on 04-05-2009 (Annexure P/1) it would be seen that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has rqected the prayer for grant of temporary (njunction after finding that since the plainftiff has not arrayed all the members of the joint family who may have an interest in the suit property, there is no prima tacie case in favour of the plaintiff. Thi®, the existence of the prima facte case has been consklered on technfcal ground and not by prima facie examining the merits of the case of the plalntiff and the defendants. (3) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabindra Kumar Shaw Vs. Manick Lal Shaw (2007) i3 SCC €47has held that when --2j- basic objection as to the malntainabtlity of the appiteation for grant of temporary injunction no longer survives in view of the impleadment of the other sons of the defendant, the matter needs to be heard afresh. (4) Counsel for the petttioner submits and which has been controverted by the counsel for the responderrts that now the trial Court has allowed the ptaintiffs application for impleadment of such other members of the family whose presence may be necessary to deckte the present suit for partition. (5) In view of the above and retying on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabindrs Kumar Sftaw (supra), and without commentlng anythir^ on the merits of the case, it is ctirected that if the petftioner/plaintlff moves a fresh application under Order 39 Rute 1 & 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction the same shall be consklered on its own mertts after hearing all the parties tothesuit. (6) Wfth thte direct'ton, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge t~