^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISC^RH AT BILASPUR SB : HOB'BLE 8HRI JUSTICB PRITINKER DIWAKER W.P. f227] N0. 2262/2009 PBTITIONEIUS v 1. Kanak Prasad Tiwari, Aged about 75 years 2. Shanlcar Prasad Tiwari, aged about 68 years Both S/o. Late Devi Prasad Thvari, Both. r/o. ViUage Khilaura, P.H.N. 153, TahsH Abhanpur, distt. Raipur (CG) 3. Smt. Shanti Tiwari fnow dead) W/o. Late ' Heinaat Prasad Tiwari 4. Tarkeshwar Tiwan 5. Jawaharlat Tiwan 6. Sanjay KumarTLwari Above petitioner No.4 ta 6 are S/o. Late Hemmit Prasad Tiwari 7. Vidhyawati Tiwari, D/o. Late Heinaat Prasad Tiwari 8. Saatosh Tiwari, D/o. Late Heniaat Prasad Tiwari 9. Ku.SatyawatiTiwari, D/o.1ate Hemaat Prasad Tiwari Above Petitioner No.7 to 9 are E/o. Hear Dattratreiya - Maadir, Brampuri, Raipur. 10. Miaor Soniya @ Guaja, D/o. Late Vijay Kumar Sharma, Through Next fi-iend inother Smt Saajubala Wd/o. Late Vijay Kum.ar Shanna 11. Smt. Saajubala Wd/o. Late Vijay Kumar Sharma -,111 ^:^ ^^: RESPOKDENTS (PlaintiS) yersus 1. 2. 3. Bofb petitioner No. 10 to 11 arer/o. Bramhanpara, Raipur (CG) Puran Prasad Tiwari, aged about 71 years, S/o. Late Diu^aprasad Tiwari, near Knshna Maadir, Shyam. N^ar, Raipur (CG) The Secretaiy,.' Water Resources Department MantraJaya, DKS Bhawaa, Raipur (CG) Govt. of Ctihattisgarh, Through CoUector, Raipur CoUectorate', Raipur (CG WR!TPBT!TIpNUNDER^&RTICt«E227 QF^THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearaace; Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel fer the petitioaers. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (04.0S.2009) Wifh the consent of the parties, thc matter is heard finaUy. This petition is directed agaiast fhe order dated 19.3.2009 passed by VIIItb Additional District Judge (FTC) Raipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 05/2008 by which the // Misc. Appeal fited by tbe plamtifF assailing the order dated 13.3.2008 has been allowed and the learaed AppeUate Court has granted iajunction in favour offhe plaintiff. Leamed. counsel for the petitioners subnuts fhat while passing the order impugned, the AppeUate Court has completely ignored the basic principles govenung the law of grant of temporary injunction. He subraits fhat fhe order SB ^ dated 13.03.2008 of the trial Court was weU reasoned order and stricUy ia accordauce wifh law. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused fhe orders. I^eamed appeUate Court wlule passiug tlie order impugned has considered aU the relevaat aspects ofthe case aad iu particular, the law ofgraat ofteiaporaiy injunction. I find no iafirmity iu fhe said order. There is no error apparent on tbe face ofrecord to iaterfere with the reasoned orders passed by the appeUate court. The petition has no substance aad is accorduigty dismissed. At fhis stage, counsel for fhe petitioaer subiaits that fhe Court below inay be directed to dispose of the case expedidously. Admittedly, fhe suit is pending siace last inore thaa one year and therefore, the trial Court is directed that the suit itself wffl be decided expeditiously preferably vrathin a period ofeigbt nionths from the date ofreceipt ofthis order. It would be the duty of the petitioner to submit the order of this Coiu-t before ttie trial court so fhat the matter wffl be decided expeditiously. However, tfae observation offhis order wiU not affect the inerits of fhe case. ;— Sd/- PritinkerDnvakar 7 Judge <L ^ 11;!U' ^