(1) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR W^P, (227) N0. OF 2010 ffi; PETITIONER/ Plaintiff /^. ^y ?ry^ .»? y ^' Badri Prasad Gupta, aged about 70 years, S/o Late Shri Shivinangal Prasad Gupta, R/o Main Road Urga, Police Chowki- Urga, Police Station 85 District- Korba, through Special Power of Attorney Rajkumar Gupta, S/o Late Shri Shivinangal Prasad Gupta, aged about 36 years, R/o Main Road Urga, Tahsil- Korba District-Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ Defendants :1 / Suresh Kumar Pandey, aged about 50 years, S/o Kashi Prasad Pandey, R/o Main Road Urga, Police Chowki-Urga, District-Korba (C.G.) Chandrashekhar Vaishnav, aged about 35 years, S/o Shironaani Das Vaishnav, R/o Village-Seniipali, Post-Kudurmal, Police Chowki- Urga, District-Korba (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Korba, District-Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER :- As stated above in cause title. '^ i ^o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BiLASPI Badri Prasad Gupta Suresh Kumar Pandey and others. Shri Ratnesh Agrawat, counse! for the petitioner. 1s 'a Lawyer for respondent No.3/State. le 227 of the Constitutjon of li .i^i •^^•7 ^ili^i^ ^..^! Heard on admission. (2) By the order impugned in this wrft petttion fiied yn( of the Constitution of India, the leamed appetlate Court, while hearing the appeal fited under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC has confirmed the order passed by the Second Civil Judge-Class-1, Korfaa in civi! Suit No.66-A/2008, rejecting the plaintiffs application under Order 39 Ruie 1 & 2,read wtth Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction to retrain the defendants/respondents No. 1&2 to constructio" on its that the Courts be'ow ication in asmuchas the (3) Learned sounsel for the petitioner submits have completely erred in rejecting the existence of prima Tacie case, balance o{ irreparable loss in his favour. According to him, thi ;ised the discretion in plaintifTs tavoar. petitione convenif las provee ans ought (4)- On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Courts below have concurrentiy found that the plaintiff has not been to prima Tacie estabdsh that the respondents No. 1 & 2 are faising construction over his iand bearing Khasra No.118/7. !t has observed by the Courts below that the plaintiff has not made any effort \to demarcate hls tend and obtain the order from the com.petenl -a- •Ti atrthority to piace on record any evidence to the effect that the i. 1 & 2 have encroached over some part of the tend c- -^f unsettle the findings recorded that the under Order 39 Rute 1 &2 Court having deaded a.c discretion and the sak appetlate Court, this Cou order so as to make it ass ot India. te 227 of the Constitution of india, by the Courts below concurrently to hold have prima facie case, balance of loss in his Tavour. ^floreover, jurisdiction CPC is discretionary jurisdiction. The trlal ist the pteintitf and refusing to exercise ier having been confirmed by the flrst Soes not find any error in the impugned able under Articte 227 of the Constitution [6) The vmt petition tails and dismissed at the admission stage. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge