/ iBi-fe:i;!iu!Eiii!'-.s !*.lj^t..i;;..i:,^^3.^: \^y %, >"Fw'' .'"^•.•'-nua a <ys4y ..^ ^tt»:)W*-!i- .»'"^» c r IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. (2271 N0. \y&^ I 2010 S.B. PETITIONERS/ (DEFENDANT N0.1) (DEFENDANT N0.2) .^^^ (DEFENDANT NO.St (DEFENDANT N0.4t (DEFENDANT N0.5) (DEFENDANT N0.6) (DEFENDANT N0.7) IDEFENDANT NO.St RESPONDENTS (PLAINTIFFl : ^l. Mohammad Gul Khan S/o Mohammad Sharif, Aged about 42 years, 2. Mohammad Sami S/o Mohammad Sharif, Aged about 49 years, -3. Nur Mohammad S/o Mohammad Sharif, Aged about 40 years, ;* -4. Nurjahan Wd/o Mohammad Sharif, Aged about 66years ^-5. Mohammad Aslam S/o Mohammad Islam, Aged about 38 years, j6. Mohammad Ajmad S/o Mohammad Islam, Aged about 30 years, -7. Mohammad Jafar S/o Mohammad Islam, Aged about 26 years, ^^8. Saida Begam Wd/o Mohammad Islam, Aged about56 years, All R/o Sothi, Tahsil- Sakti, Distt.- Janjgi-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS . : -^l. Sakuran Begam Wd/o Mohammad Yusuf, Aged about-95 years, Caste- Muslim, R/o Sothi, Tahsil- "-^ r^Ni^-^ ' is;^fS:a ^ft^fS^^ .^ ' '^s. -^^ ^ .,^^j 7,y (DEFENDANT N0.91 (DEFENDANT N0.101 (DEFENDANT N0.111 (DEFENDANT N0.121 (DEFENDANT N0.131 (DEFENDANT N0.141 (DEFENDANT N0.151 (DEFENDANT N0.16) (DEFENDANT Sakti, Distt.- Janjgi-Champa (C.G.). Through- Special Attorney Mohammad Naim S/o Mohammad Salim, aged about- 25 years, R/o Sothi, Tahsil- Sakti, Distt.- Janjgi- Champa (C.G.). ^2. Samim Mohammad S/o Hafij Moharamad, Aged about 46 years, - 3. Kalim Mohammad S/o Hafij Mohammad, Aged about 42 years, 4. Nadim Mohammad S/o Hafij Mohammad, Aged about 46 years, '5. Alim Mohammad S/o Hafij Mohammad, Aged about 28 years, ^--6 Rajiya Begam D/o Mohammad Yusuf, aged about- 52 years -7 Mohammad Latif S/o Mohammad Yusuf, Aged about 76 years, -8 Mohammad Ayub S/o Yasin Mohammad, Aged about 76 years, 9 Aamna Begam D/o Mohammad Yasin, Aged about 68 years, 10 Sogra Begam D/o ^ (£) /-:;<:.y, S6 ?£>.',. ^, N0.17) (DEFENDANT N0.181 (DEFENDANT N0.191 (DEFENDANT N0.201 IDEFENDANT N0.211 (DEFENDANT N0.221 (DEFENDANT N0.231 (DEFENDANT N0.241 \'^\ Aged ^ 11 Mohammad Yasin, about 64 years, Bilkis Begam Mohammad Yasin, about 60 years, ^'12 Aabdi Begain Mohammad Yasin, about 55 years, 13 Jubeda Begam Mohammad Yasin, about 55 years, <-^'I4 Mohammad Said Mohammad Yusuf, about 58 years, 15 Mohammad Nijam Mohammad Yusuf, -16 Mohammad Salim Mohamm.ad Yusuf, about 67 years, Respondent No. 2 to 16 R/o Sothi, Tahsil- Sakti, Distt.- Janjgi-Champa (C.G.). ^'17 Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Collector Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 18 Shahnaj Begam D/o Mohammad Sharif, aged about 45 years Caste- Muslim, R/o Sothi, Tahsil- Sakti, Distt.- Janjgi-Champa (C.G.). Present Address:- Surajpur, D/o Aged D/o Aged D/o Aged Aged S/o S/o Aged Tahsil & Police Station- Surajpur, Disst.- Sarguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3^^ ^^ "te!3?"!3i, .^ '%i ' -, 'a ^ ^ i^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition {227} No. 1282 of 2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Versus Mohammad Gut Khan and others. Sakuran Begam and others. Smt. Renu Kochar,counsel forthe petitioners, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (28.03.2011) , Leamed counsel for the petitionere would submit that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality by allowing plaintiffs application under Section 151 of C.P.C. and directing the parties to the suit to maintain stafais-quo with regard to alienation of the suit land during pendency of the plaintiffs application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 ofC.P.C. (2) On perusal of the Impugned order it would appear that the tnal Court has disposed of plaintiffs application I.A. No. 3/10 and defendante No. 1 to 8's application I.A. No. 4/10 and has directed the parties to the suit to not to alienate the suit property and maintain status-quo during pendency of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioners woukl submit that I.A. No. 4/18 was not an application on behalf of defendants' No. 1 to 8 but in fact that was a reply to the plaintiffs application under Section 151 of C.P.C. (4) Be that as it may, copy of the said I.A. No. 4/10 has not been placed on record of this writ petition. Moreover, the impugned order, passed on 25/02/2010, was to remain operative during pendency of the application -2^~ under Order 39 Rute 1 & 2 of C.P.C. More than one year has elapsed thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a statement at the bar that plaintiffs application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. has not yet been decided. (5) In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the plaintiffs application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, if already not disposed of. (6) With this observation, the instant writ petition stands djsposed of. Sd//- PrashantKumarMishra Judge Sit-