- /v ^ 1N.THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPIJR: OHHATT1SGARH MISC. APPEAL N0. OF 2006 Appellant l^laintiff ^ Dr. Tarun Kumar Naik aged about 40 years, S/o Dr. Radhe Shyam Naik, R/o Maoja - Baghera, Tehsjl & Distt. Durg (Chhattisg^rh) Versus Respondents t?efendants 4. 5. Rajesh Deshmul^h, aged about 30 years S/o Late Shri Toranlal Deshmukh, R/o Mouza Janjgiri, Tahsil & District Durg Hiralal, Aged about 76 years, S/o Late Shri Kapitnath, Bhuneshwar @ Kuleshwar, aged about 69 years, S/o late Kapilnath, Shailendra, aged about 39 years, S/o Deo Prasad, Sanjay, aged about 37 years, Deo Prasad, (Sl. No. 2 to 5, R/o Mouza Baghera, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) ^, 6. State of Chhattisgarh through the District Collector, Durg (Chhattisgarh) w^:" MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL_UNDER QRDER 43 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 ^'" iC—78 ^R^T ^T I<T114» ^:3?I^T ^)^i°ft '3"s[ r^i^Kn^, ^Ti1<4^i<o, f°i<ni^y f>n A- ^0...'....?.?'^.. ^froctT tblich ^200^ 3TI^T TI^>' (yi^q^) '^nw^rf^ S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aa 29-10-2009 Shri R.S. Marhas, counsel fot Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt.l Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the Stat^/ Heard on admission. The jnstant appeal js 2006 passed by IXth Additional No.l-A/2006 whereby and RuIe1&2ofC.P.CTfiledi The facte bn'efly stated as un^ The appellant/plaintiff declaration for titte on the basji permanent injunctjon. He has temporary injunction under Order 39| Court after hearing both the partiesj it did notappear that the plaintiff is aiso held prima facie by the trial stands in the name of defendal application was dismissed. Shri R.S. Marhas, (earned co^ that the learned Trial Court has er c^l^d^'1 iTTH^f ^E f^t <r^^i< ^srRm^Ti^T rwa^ the appellant. Advocate with Shri Sanjeev Kumar respondent No.6. dired^d s^iainst the order dated 12-05- Dislt-ict Judge (F.T.C.) Durg jn Civil Suit whereurlder the application under Order 39 bythe aprieilant/plaintiff has been dismlssed. jer: jnstluted a suit seeking relief of of adverse possession and for frlso preferred an application for 1 Rule 1 & 2 ofC.P.C. Learned Trial recorded a finding that prima facie |n possessjon of suit properiy. Itls ;ourt that admittedly the properfy ijits/respondents and thereby the |inset for the appetlant would submit I'ed in recording the prima facie '—78 a^T'^T'f^TNF ^ 31T^T '^ITGR' Kvr WH<!f(l fl»*11<»» '7Sf T^i'4i<n*i, ^Tii^<i<o, f^<ni'<H'j,< .....^..A.....C:..:..9..^,ooC ^TI^T 'q^T ( yi^^) ^RTTW ^f^a 37T^T a' finding that the appellant/plaintiff i"4 and, therefore, the order passed b^ deserves to be set aside. After hearing learned CQu|isel perusing the order impugned, in finding recorded bythetrial Court is| correct. The appellant/plaintiff has |not possessjon over the suit property the iand stands recorded in the re^enue persons. In view of above, by no that prima facie, the appellant/plajntiff possession of the suit property. Mc|reover 2006. As submitted by the learned| being recorded in the case. In vievj/ at the verge of disposal, interferen|ce Court is also not desjrable. Therefore, appeal is djsmiss^d. learned Trial Court shall decide the| wjthin a period of six months from In view of above, M.(C}.P. N< cbl^^'1 'RPRT^t* ^f 'feT3t <F^<^l< ^3tf^H3TT^T not in possession of the suit land the learned trlal Court Is bad and for the appellant and after (ny considered opinton prima fade based on record andappears to be filed any document showing his ^ince 06-10-1983. On the contrary, records in the name of other ^tretch of Imaginatlon it can be said js in actuai physical or l^gal c|reover, this appeal is pending since |counsel for the parties, evidence is of the fact that since the matter is in the order passed by the triai However, it is directed that the |suit as eariy as possibte preferably l^e date of receipt of this order. t.1340/2006 stands dismtssed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge