/./' SIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BiLASPUR P.etitioner Piaintiff Respondents Writ Petition ?<o. 2002 of 2004 Dr. Smt. Surjeet Bahal, aged about 58 years, W/o. G.S. Bahai. through Power of Attorn&y Hoider, Shri G.S. Baha!, R/o. SS-Silvsr State-7, Racs Course Road, IndQre (MP). Versus 15 Smt. Ravindar Kaur. aged sbo-ut 48 years, W/b. Sardar Harbhajan Singh, R/o. Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG). 2) Sardar Gajendra Singh Rajpal, agsd about 51 years, S/'o. Late Kartar Singh, R/o. Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Shahar, Tahsl! and Distt. Raipur (CG). Pressnt: 3) Sarsdar Harbhaj'an Singh Rajpai, aged aboui 56 vears. S/o. Late Ksrtar Singh. R/o. Shankar Nagsr, Raipur (CG)- (Writ Petitlon under Articie 226/227 of ConsSitution of Indiai SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Wu. Abhishek Sinha. counsel for the oetitioner. Mr. B.D. Guru, counssl for ths respondents. (Passed on this 23'° day of January, 2008) W'ith the consent of learned counsei for both ihe parties, the matter 's heard finally. 1) By thls petition, the petiiioner seeks to challenge ths validiti/ and Droprietv of the order dated 24-4-2004 (Annexure P/3j psssed by 'Vth Additionai District Judge, Raipur, whereby the appea! preferrsd by the respondents under Order 43 Ruie 1 (r) of ths Code of Civi! Procedurs, 1908 (fcr short, "CPC") was allowed and the order oassed bv' the civii uudse was set aside. 2) The brief facts, in nutsheli, as projected by the petitloner, ars thsi ths Detitioner/Dlaintiff fiied a suit for oermanent iniunction anci aiso fiied an application under Order 39 Ruie 1 & 2 of the CPC for grant of temporary iniunction. The ciaim ;n She suit was based on the around that the peiitioner was the owner of the land bearing Khasrs bearing No. 20/18, area 0.094 hectares, 2. V 1 i<\-- :•,»*'•"•••>. '^•.•. situated at Shankar Naaar, Raiour. The Detitioner had ourohased the sald iand from one Ramorasad. The resDondents/defendants are iiieaailv raisina a construction (v/ail) on the land of the petitioner. Accordingiy, the petitioner fiied an appiication under Order 39 Ruie 1 and 2 of the CPC before ttis triai Court. The respondents/defendants filed their written statsment aiteging that since 1993 the temporar/ fencing was made and subsequentiy iooking to the security and safety, the waii was constructed which belonaed to them and thev v/ere not trying to obtain fhe iilegai possession of the iand be!onglng to the petitioner. 3) The 9"' CivH Judge, Class u, Ralpur, by orcer dated 8-9-2003 (Annexure P/2) aiiowed the appiication of the petitioner fiied under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC hoiding that the land situated In front ofthe !and does not beiong to the respondents/defendants snd the same beiongs to ths petitioner. Accordingiy, the triai Court restrained the defendants from further construction tlll the finai disoosai of the case and also directed to maintain status auo. Thereagainst. the resDondents/defendants oreferred an aoDeai being Misc. Civii Aooeal No. 53/2003 before the IVth Additionai District Judge, Raipur, «vho aliowed the appeal fiied by t'ne respondents/'defendants and set aside ths order passed by the civii Judae hoidina that on the date of institution of the suit i.e. on 2-9-2003 the name ofthe petitioner was not recorded in the Revenue Recorcis, therefore, it cannot be said Shat the oetitioner «vas in iawful possession of the Sand in auestion. Thus, this petition. 4) have heard iearned counsel for the parties, perussd the pieadings and documents aooended thereto. 5) This is a petition under Articie 227 of the Constltution of india, impugning ihe order dated 24-4-2004 (Annexure P/3), whereby the appeai flied 'oy the respondents against the order dated 8-9-2003 (Annexure P.'2) passed by 9'" CiVii Judge, C!ass 11, Raipur, was under chaiienge. The Civil Judge, sSa? considerina aii the asoects of the matter aliowed the appiicatic.n 'Hied undsr Order 39, Ruie 1 and 2 of the CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff by order dated -^>' /^J S-9-2003 aaainst the respondents/defendanis. The iearned Civii Judae came to ths concius'ion that it was not cisar asto v/ho was In possession of which portion of the iand. Howevsr, having regard to the fact that construction ••vas being raised, the respondents/defendants were iniuncted from raisina construction on the iand as the baiance of convenience was in favour of the oetitioner. The IVth Additlona! District Judae, Raiour. in aoDeai aaalnst the order dated 8-S-2003, set aside the order passed by the Civi! Judge and allowed the appeal f.1ed by the respondents/defendants (Annexure F/3). The iearned iV Additional Disfrict Judge, Raipur, after having examined the case at iength, came to the conciusion that on the basis of demsreatson report submitted bv Tahasiidar, it was ciear that the resoondents/defendanis were makina construction on their own lands. It was Turther held that in the event the piaintlff/petitioner succeeds in the suit, the respondents/defendants have undertaken to remove the construction from She tand wlfhout any condition. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the aDpeai was aliowed. 6) I have examined the order passed by iearned Civil Judge as weii as the order passed by iearned IV Additlonal Dlstrict Jadge in appeai. T! On perusal of the aforesaid orders. it aooears that so far as oossession of the iand in dispute is concerned, it is not ciear as the same can be decidsd oniy after hearing both the parties, recording and examining evidences and witnesses. At this sage, grantlng temporary Injunction in favour of the petitioner/piaintiff may not be proper. 8) Havina reaard to the facte situation of the case, it is exoscted that ihe parties shali malntain status quo, til! the disposai of the suit. As the suit is pendlng since 2003, the court be!ow where the suit is pending consideration, is expscted So expedite the hearing and dispose of the matter, as eariy as possibie, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a coDV'ofthisorder. ,^Bi^ ^s^ ^l- 3) For the reasons and direction mentioned hereinabov®,thas petition is ailowed to the above extent. Conseauentiy. h4.W.P.No. 1809 of 2004 also stands disoosed of. No order asto costs. safeh K. Asnihotri =;:iju