mTHE c^^^ MS AT BILASFOR (C.G.l W.P. ICl N0. \ \^/200T PBTmQHER PLAINTIFF «p /f»^> ; ..•' >p'^..-" . / f}-^ ,-• \^sy 7 DEFBNDANT\0/Y<<?-' / ^w Ramesh Agrawal S/o. Shatruehan Agrawal, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Baloda Bazar, PoUce Station & TahsB Baloda Bazar, District - Raipiir (CG) VKt Smt. Sharda Soni, W/o. Surendra Som, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Baloda Bazar, Police Station & Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District - Raipur (CG) y WRIT PBTITIOK UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTITUTIOS? OF INDL4 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLESHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MBHRA.J. W.P.fClNo.114 of 2007 PETITIONER Ramesh Agrawal. Versus RESPONDENT Smt.Sharda Soni. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTn-UTION OF INDIA. Shrf Manoj Paranjpe, counsel fbr the pefitioner. None for the respondent, tfrough served. ORALORDER (11/02/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. Learned counsel for tfte peUtioner would submit that he has been served a copy of retum, however name of the counsel is not menUoned. Record of the writ petltion does not contafn any Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent. y) In thls situation this Court proceeds to hear ttie matter finally. (3) The plaintiff preferred the suit Tor declaration and permanent iniunction. along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. for resfraining the defendant to demolish the wall and the land situated on the suit land during pendency of the suit. The trial Court vide ite order dated 31/07/2006 granted the prayer and restrained th®defendant from demolishing the wall during pendency of the suitandat fte same time plaintiff was also directed to subm'rt undertaking that if e suit faits he shall himself remove the wall at his own expenses. (4) Order passed by the trial Court has been set-askle and the temporary Iniunction has been vacated by the appellate Court vide its order dated 29/12/2006 which is the order impugned in this writ petiUon. ,^ .J^. ^. i.:»<5?'^, s sp-'y Xa^ "~ '3k C5) The instant writ peUtion was filed on 15/01/2007. By an order dated 29/01/2007 this Court directed that status-quo with respect to disputed walt shall be malntained by the parties. For the last more than four years the respondent has not moved any applicatton for vacating the interim order. (6) In view of the above and in view of the law laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Wander Ltd. and AnaOier vs. Antox India P. Ltd. reported in 1990 fSuppJLJ SCC 727 wherein it has been laid down^ ordinarily the appellate Court should not interfere in the exercise of the discretion by the frial Court in exercise of iurisdiction under order 39 Rule 1 > 2 of C.P.C., this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direclion that the suit itself shall be decided by the trial Court as early as possible and within a period of eight months from today and during pendency of the suit the interim order passed by this Court directing the parUes to maintain status-quo shall remain in operation. (7) The instant petition stands disposed of. (8) In view of disposal of the writ petition, M.W.P. No. 249/2007 for grant of ad-interim relief also stands disposed of. Sd//- prashantKumar Judge Mishra V- -../