HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTE$GH AT EILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pminker Diwaker} WWT PET§T§QN (227) NO‘ 4262 of 20G$ PETETIGNER$ 1. Bedharam, Slc Bhcopéev Singh, aged {Defei'adam No.1; about 72 years. (Defendani‘ No.2} 2. Kunjiam, Slo Shri Bhoodev gingh, ageii about m years, both by caste Aghariya resident of Wiage $urri, Tah. & Dmt. Raigam (Cya; VEREUS RESPONDEN?S 1. Phoaikumari WWO Late Hari Charan (Vmin‘éff‘s; Naik, aged abcut 35 years. 2. Kumari Laiag D/o Late Hari {mar-an Maik, aged about $5 years. 3. Kumar5 Rama, Die Late Hari Charan Naik, aged about 13 years; the respondent No. 2 & 3 are minor they are through their natura! guardian Mother Smt. Phoaikumari,. Wdfo Late Hari Charan Naik, aged about 35 years, ail are resident of Viiiage Surri Tahsii and District - Raigarh (Q.G.) (Defendant N03} 4. Tarachami, Sfa 8hri Abhayrem Aghariya, aged eb'au‘t $5 yeare, Resicient of \fiiiage Surri, Tahsii & Dietrict Raigarh {C.G.i S. $tate 3f Chhai’cisgarh €hrough Eiet. Collector Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Nlr. R.$. Paiei ceuresei ier the eeti‘iieners. Mr. Shri Kumar Agrawal Sr. counsel with Mr. Maiay Bhaduri for {he reseoncients ’i to 4. Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent No.5IState. WRIT @ETI’iiON UNDER ARTICLE 227 GF THE CONSTlTUTlGN OF lNDlA ORDER {98.94.2e09) Challenge in ihis petition is to the order ciateci 123.G?.20G8; (Annexure P-i) passed by District Judge, Raigarh in Misc. Appeal No. . 26/2007 dismissihg the appeal filed by the petitioners/defendants against f Jig? M \ i n 7/ e/ me cro‘er dated 29.1 1 .2007 passed by Civil Judge Class §i Raigarh, and ancwmg the appiication $ed Kay the respondent$;’p§aim§ffs Lmder Grder 39 n Rme 1 and 4 of the Code cf CM! Procedure resiraming ihe petitimers/defendant5 from entering into the premises and also from aiienating the suit prcperry in any manner. 2. In support of his confientioru couhse! for the petit‘aoners submits that basic prinsipies of Order 39 Ruie 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not in favour of the respoodents/piaémiffs because there is neither prime facie case in their favour nor is i’nere baiance of convenience nor ‘11 any irreparabie ioss has been estabiiehed by them. 3. On ine other hand supporting the order impugned counsel for ihe responder-Ks submit ihat principie of iaw governing temporary injunction is in favour of the respondents/piaintifis and if the injunotion is not granted in their favour, irreparable ioss shali be caused to them which shaii resuii in muiiipiicity of the proceedings. 4. On 2&1 1.2007 Trial Court granted injunction in favour of ihe respondents/piaintiifs and iili date the said order is in operation No usefui purpose wiii be served in disturbing inis order a‘i this stage and making the parties to land themseives in the muitipiicity of the proceedings. Thus, the petition is without substance and is iia’oie to meet the fate of dismissal. it is dismissed as suon. 6. Counsei for the petitioners however submits that ‘cne i suit L is pending since 23.3.2007 and therefore the Court beiow may be directed for eariy dispose! of the suit. i am in agreement with the submission of the counsei cror tins petitioner because it such a direction is issued; no harm would be caused to any of the parties. Accordingly‘ the Court beiow is directed to dispose of the suit itseif as expeditiousiy as possible preferably within a . period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Due @ yr! co-operatt’er; from the panies is expected sa that the suit of within the time stipulated above. Rx ‘ Sd/__R v _i_ Sd/ Pritinker Diwaker ‘ . : Judge W