Hi§§°§ €§3L§i f}? €Hi¢i§?’fi§§i¥§%§‘i ivi EELA§P€JQ mgée Bench: Eon;b:e $hré Exp Raasaheb Deshmuk‘n, J. §£igce33aneeus Apgeai F53. 19§i269é Agmiiam Gayaiai Sharma, son of iate Gariba Shafma, Casée: Vishwakafma, resiéent 9f Vishwakama Rxrniiure Mari, Pewer Hausa Roaé, Kcrba, Tah: & L): Kama (CG) V,“ do 4 Jamab See, wido cf iaie h Umai’daraz Khan, age£€ aboui ’o‘? years, ‘a Musiim, resideni cf Fiajendranagar, Tah: 8: Di: Ei§a5§wi {GE} G; v N! $a§rangéai San}, son 6:5 Sawanarayana Semi, aged abcut ' 4? years‘ caste: Senar, residem of P ; 9‘1 umm ma$ti, Korba, Tah: & Di: Kerba (CG) 3‘ 19¢ Radha Seni, wife e? Shs'i Bagrangiaé $sné, aged abau? 34 yams, saste $o‘naf, resicieni of g 'ané Basii, Ksrba, ’i'ah: 3: Qt: KQiba{ G; acw; #Xpms‘: Qwa? Qmi''ar 43 Ruée :1ir3 9f ‘éhe {:mia c? Qivii Pmwtiwe s wi‘tf‘. Srm Qamrm Aziz, caumei §?a35e€5 Ga €$:0?~2§3Q?} Heard an adm353mn. The agapeEEantfgiaimié‘f §3 aggi’ieved by an order daiea‘ .1 29134 passed by éhe Ersfz Additisnai gistric‘: Judge, Kama m Civii ui‘a N9. 5-Ai2CG3 whamby hés appiica€ien ursa‘ea' {Em-1e? 3Q Ruias 1 7 Seciiim V? of ih-e CPS. vas dis raissaci. 9K3 w x / § V / H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ,A §ingie Bench: Hon’bie Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Misceaianeous Appeai No. 105i2004 I MkisceHaraeous Appea} Under Gru‘er 43 Ruie :Hr) of the Code of Civil Procedure i , t Present - ohrz N K Agrawai Senior Advocate With Shri Qamrvt 212 counsel for the appeifant ORAL ORDER (Passed en 16-07_-2007) Heard on aoimission‘ 1 The appeti'ant/pla’intrK is aggrieved by an order dated 71 .2004 passed by the First Additionai District Judge, Korba in Civii S'uit No. 5-Aa’2003 whereby his appiication under Order 39 Ruies 1 ahd 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. was dismissed. A 1 Appeiiant % Gayalal Sharma, son of late §’:amtm Gariba Sharma, Caste: Vishwakarma, resident of Vishwakarma Furniture Mart, Power House Road, Korba, Tah: & Di: Korba (C.G.) ‘ . Versus Respendents 1. Jainab Bee,“ widow of iate Eefendants .Umardaraz Khan aged about 57 9 = years, Caste Mueiim, resident cf Rajendranagar, Tah: & Dt: Bitaspur (C.G.) t 1 i Bajtangtal Soni, son of i g Satyanarayana Sent, aged about 41 years, caste: Sonar, fesident of Purani Basti, Korba, Tah: & Dt: Korba (C.G.) t 3. Smt. Radha Soni, wife of Shri Bajrangta! Soni, aged about 34 years, caste Sonat, resident of t V Purani Basti, Kotba, Tah: & Bt; i Korba (C.G.) i i . Brief facts are that the appeHantJmaintiff is a tenant of r spondentidefendant No. 1 in the suit premises. The ppeiiantipiaintiff filed a suit against the respondent$ldefendantgvf§ pecmc performance ‘of contiact to seii the suit piemises on the round that on 24—11-2001 the respondetit/defendant No. 1, iandtord had agreed to sell the suit premises for a consideration of 5.5 lacs and had received Rs.1 tac as earnest money. The reSpondentidefendant No.1, prior to the instttution of the civil suit, ad soid the suit premises to respondents No. 2 and 3 by a rigistered sate deed dated 1t-4-2002. Apprehending forcefut dispossession from the suit premises by the respondents/defendants No.2 and 3, the appeiiant/piaintitf tiied an dpptioatton under: Order 39 Ruies 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. 1t is not in dispute that the- respondent/defendant No.1 has sold the suit drernises to respondent No. 2 and 3 by a registered sate deed prior to‘ the date of suit. lt is also not in dispute that there is no written greement between the tenant i.e. the appeiiant/plaintitt and the rejspondentidetendant No. ’i u the landlord/owner regarding sate of the suit premises. it is also not in dispute that there was no material td show advancement of Rs.’l iac by the respondent/deiendant No.1 td the appeilant/plaintii‘i. u u . l ln this View of the matter, neither the appeilant/plaintitf has a p ima facie case nor the balance of convenience lies in his favour. Np irreparabie injury is caused to the appeiiantlplaintitf as he couid not be dispossessed otherwise than in accordance with law. The rdiection of the application filed under Order 3§ Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of C.P.C. by the iower Court isjust and proper and does not cali for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dil‘smissed. l l l l 423/2004 for urgent hearing stand disposed of, l l 5 fo . Consequently, ii/i.(C),E.No.i71!2004 which is an application issuance of prohibitory temporary injunction and LA. No. Sdl— Dilip Raosaheb 1 *1 Deshmukh Judge V (ryswrs : a