fc~.=""g^R)? fc>^,Ni^rii IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR_CQGJ WRIT PETITION ('Q N0. &5~67 OF 2006 PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS t.\ •\fi? •*~ ^w'/ ^- ^.•\^-' / V^'^y 7/^/, y yi^y «a; ; <w' <S 3? .>-'" RESPQNDENTS ^s DEFENDANTS ^o^ ^T-''~1-'"-^ r^^i^ ,1 / ^ii^ "1 /, /U ^•^vt w^- z- y?oi.ii< Raghav Prasad Son of Late Shri Ramvriksha, aged about 42 years;Caste Kewat; Pradeep Kumar Son of Late Shri Ramvriksha, aged about 36 years, Caste Kewat; Mst. Rajmaniya (wrongly mentioned as Rajmaniyasa in the impugned order), widow of Late Shri Ramvriksha, aged about 65 years, Caste Kewat; All are residents of Village Mahuadeeh, Sub Tahsil Shankargarh, Tahsil Samri (Kusmi), District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS Kalawati Wife of Late Shri Vindeshwari Prasad D/o Late Shri Ramvriksha, aged about 45 years; Caste Kewat, Resident of Village Mahuadeeh, Sub Tahsil Shankargarh, Tahsil Samri (Kusmi), District Surguja (C.G.). Leelawati Wife of Shri Rajaram, D/o Late Shri Ramvriksha, aged about 40 years, Resident of Village Diwanibandh, Tahsil and Police Station Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.). Al-HC-78 sn^r^^R; gqrsn^rgiiTRil ^- 3^'^PIRpr, STfteiTS-, ^lRfy ^^^^^.a^ll^ ^ ~\ ^3; 200 an^r'raq;'(ipi^g^r) ?TaiW(riN'3Ti^r TOrfa^T iTrofffffet^ rfSrezrc ^sri^q'an^r S.1.2007: Mr.V.K. Pandey counsel for|the petitioners. Mr. Utkarsh Verma Dy. GA ^ppears for respondent/State. l-1eard. The petitioners by the insjsnt petition have impugned the order dated 12.9.2006 passed by the |earned First Additional District Judge, Sarguja by which allowing the i|niscellaneous appeal preferred by the respondents/defendants the ordef of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court in favour of the petition^rs has been set aside. Learned counsel for the p^titioners submits that the trial Court vide its order dated 14.12.2004 atlowejl the application for temporary injunction and stayed the revenue proce^dings between the parties before the revenue Court and further directe|j maintenance of status quo with respect to the possession of the parties o|/er their respective shares. However, the appellate Court has set-aside th4 above order. He submits that since the suit is pending between the parti^s it would be appropriate that the parallel proceedings before the Revenu^ Court ought to have been stayed which was rightly done by the frial C^urt. However, by the impugned order a reasoned order passed by th therefore, interference is calledl Article 227ofthe Constitution ofl b trial Court has been set-aside and for in exercise of the jurisdiction under india. 1 have heard counsel for tfie petitioner and perused the order of the trial Court as also the appellate (pourt. So far as the finding of th^ appellate Court that the order of the trial court maintaining status quo wfth respect to the share of the parties is h <</' 1 M pb s/r-Wx^^ae^_ XI-HC-78 3^ '<ll<41cl<l, ®Tf)^'16,jc|<-||+|^< *ll*<dl sh<Tiqi ^.e.w.k^.t^^ 3Ti^?riraqT (i^ij^sj^sr) STI^TWf^fR? aqrsn^raiiFR; 1t> ^ roiiWBf?(r3n^r •+i<it<-i^ 4i^<-i'i'^fei<a <Riwi< ^sf^iTsn^r concemed, the same has been rigl|itly passed as admittedly the property in question is a joint family proper^ in which each and every party is in possession of their respective shar^s and in such circumstances no order of maintenance of status quo coulp be passed. However, the impugned order does not deal with that part o^ the order of the trial Court wherein the proceedings before the Revenue pourt have been stayed and without considering that aspect the order 4f the trial Court has been set aside in toto. tn the aforesaid circumstanci move appropriate application b^ es liberty is granted to the petitioner to fore the trial Court for staying the proceedings before the revenue C^urt which shall be decided on its own merits after affording opportunity o1| hearing to the parties. If the parties are aggrieved by the said order the^ may take recourse to the remedies available under the law. With the aforesaid observati|cins the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Dhirednra Mishra Judge P.T.O. 1..'.'s- -^A-