@ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wit: EEM€§H WRIT PETITION [C] No. if’vgg [2006 [5.3.] FROM RAIPUR DISTRICT PETITIONER :~ Harpreet Singh Son of Sardar Geda K" Singh, aged about 42 years, Resident of beside Gurudwara, Gurunank Nagar, Telibandha, post Ravigram, Raipur [C.G.] and C/o KS‘ Sales Agency near Hari Om Palace Hotel, Fatwa complex, KK Road, Raipur [co]. ORIGINAL DEFENDANT N0. 1 VERSUS l] Bhasin Auto Parts, Through— Proprietor Smt. Ravinder Kaur, Wife of Sardar Anup Singh Keshar, R/ o ,Gurunanak Nagar, RS. Telebandha, Post Ravigram, District Raipur [C. G.]. Vijay Pinjani son of Shri Chandrapal Pinj ani. Suresh Pinjani son of Shri Chandrapal Pinjani. Kumari Meena Pinjani son of Shri Chandrapal Pinjani. No. 2 to 4 are resident of Ashok Park, Shankar Nagar, Raipur [C.G.]. Smt. Pawan Kakkad w/o Shri Ashok Kakkad, R/o Awanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur [C.G.] ORIGINAL PLAINTIFFS State of Chhattisgarh, Through— Collector, Raipur [C.G.]I DEFENDANT No.2 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITIS] ORDERIS], DIRECTIONIS] TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER JGQQ XI-HC-78 WW,W,W (iii? WW ~ .wR.9<?:S.8./Q%W 2'00 mm<m) WWW wmm WWW WW§WW %a11%qaa1%a 10.1 .2007: the petitioner. Shri Malay Bhaduri counsei f0! By this petition the petitioner has impugned the order of Annexure P-2 whereby the learned District Judge, Raipur allowing the miscellaneous appeal preferred by the respondents has passed an order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondentsfplaintiffs and directed th a petitioner not to transfer the disputed property directly or indirectly and further not to interfere with the possession of the piaintiffs till disposal of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is contrary :he court below placing reliance on the registered :l in this way the Court below has in fact decided to law as same has been passed by sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs an the suit on merits and nothing remains l have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, Application for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the property was mutated in the name of defendants and on that basis it was held by the court below that the defendants were in possession of the disputed property. However, the appellate C to be decided. 3urt in miscellaneous appeal preferred by the plaintiffs allowed the application for temporary injunction with a finding that from the materiai available on record including the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs prima l facie case is in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed property and in the aforesaic circumstances order of temporary injunction has been passed. ‘ l P.T.O. l XI—HC-78 EW,W,W bé WWW WWW Wmm mmn‘wm §;31%w311%$r G / N / etitioner could not point out any illegality or ned passed by the court below as the application sided by the court below on the basis of amdavits materiai available 0n record Thus the order impugned does not can for any interference from this Court in :le 227 of the Constitution of india and accordingly s liable to be dismissed. it is hereby dismissed. However‘ the observations m case and the court below shall de influenced by this order. Learned counsel for the p jurisdictional error in the order impug for temporary injunction has been de filed by the respective parties and the exercise of the jurisdiction under Arti( the petition being without substance i ade in this order shall not affect the merits of the zcide the suit on its own merits without being Sdl— Dhirendra Mishl‘a Judge P.T.O. @ ' .c.o.F%2§%/ mm 1H 200 Wm (W)