o 91^®Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. ^^36)/2^Q«^OQj \\ PETITIONER Plaintiff ^ Rajaram aged about 34 years, S/o Late Preinlal Sahu, Agriculturist, R/o Village Patpar, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS rRESPONDENTS 1. > ^<^//. ^y ^...Jh? •:,^ .^ {^ <f ^r ^^ Roshanlal aged about 27 years, S/o Late Premlal Sahu, Agriculturist, 2. Punabati. aged bout 65 years, W/o Premlal Sahu, Both ,R/o Village Patpar, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon 3, Devkuwar, aged about 40 years, W/o Goverdhandas Sahu, R/o Village e, Pinkapara, Uptahsil Churiya, Distt. Rajnandgaon 4. Meena Bai aged about 37 years, W/o Rajendra Kumar Sahu, R/o Village ^ Shikaritola, Tahsil Churiya,Distt. Rajnandgaon 5. Padmabai aged about 36 years, W/o Deenu Sahu, R/o Village Ghughwa, ^ Salhe, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon ^6. Savitribai aged about 31 years, W/o ^" Rikhiram Sahu, R/o Village Kursipar, Tahsil Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon , 7 Motim Bai aged bout 29 years, W/o (j[> € Annudas Sahu R/ o Village Lalbahadur Nagar, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon ' ^g. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Distt. Rajnandgoan (C.G.) 5 ^\v\\,v^^ ^ ;<" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l-v^ HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0.3038 OF 2009 PETIT50NER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS Rajaram Versus Roshanlal and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTtCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUT10N OF INDIA (Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Shri N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitloner. Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1,2&4to7. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Government advocate for the State/respondent No.8 ORALORDER (Passed on 17th day of January, 2011) Heard. 2. The plaintjff/petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the defendants. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 for restraining the defendants from interfering in the plaintiffs possession during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court rejected the prayer for grant of temporary injunction. There against, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the suit has reached to the stage of recording of evidence of the parties. 4. Without commenting about the merits of the case, either of parties at this stage of the proceedings, this Court direct the trial Court that the suit itself be decided as eariy as possible preferably within a period of 9 months. ^ .^T' ^te^;%.. % H ^m^^i^ f ^ ^•^..,.-':/ ^:y ^;y ^^•s^^ u-1' Kvr 5. With the above direction, the writ petition stand djsposed of. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge