HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Vivek Chopda, Advocate for the petitioner. 7 :‘f’ Shri O.P. Yadav, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 313‘ day of March, 2010) Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. 1. The petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 11—8—2003 (Annexure — P/5) passed by the 11‘“ Civil Judge Class — ll, Raipur, whereby and whereunder the application tiled by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC") in civil suit No.21-Al2003 was rejected and'the order dated 24-9-2003 (Annexure — P/6) passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.48/2003 by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, for adjudication of the case, are that the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent University. In the pending suit, the petitioner made an ”application under Order ‘39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, seeking interim injunction against the advertisement dated 28-7-2003 whereby the applications were ,1 \ \\\ WRIT PETITION NO. 3291 OF 2003 PETITIONER Smt. Sudha Sharma Versus RESPONDENT Pt. Ravishankar ShUkIa University @ invited for the post of Library Assistant Grade — I. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, the Civil Judge dismissed the interim application by order dated 11-8-2003. Thereafter, the petitioner has gone in appeal that: was aiso dismissed. The petitioner has sought interim injunction against the effect and operation of the advertisement dated 28-7-2003. Since the interim relief was not granted by bothy’the Courts below, the advertisement must have been given effect to and the interim application was rightly rejected, as staying the effect and operation of the advertisement, according to the Courts below, amounts to grant of final relief. lt is well-nigh established that the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. For the reasons mentioned hereina‘bove, interfering at this stage under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia is neither expedient norjust and proper. ln the result, the writ petition is fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sdl‘ Satish K- : r» Judge l i Agnihom ‘j t i