HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONBR Plaintiff RESPONDENTS Defendaats W.P.J2271 No. 7966 OF 2011 Versus D- 2) 3) .4) Mirza Hafeez Baig, S/o Mtrza Haidar AU Baig, aged about 39 years, Caste Musalaiau, R/o Chulghat Road, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.j. Naeem Khaa, S/o Haaeef KIiaa aged about 55 years, Caste Musalmau, R/o Musalm.au MohaUa, Takhatpur, Distdct Bilaspur (C.G.). Shabir Ansari, S/o SukuruUa Ansan, aged about 54 years, Caste Musalm.ao., R/o Musahnaa Mohatla, Takhatpur, District Bflaspur (C.G.j Presentty at Kabir Chaura Adha Sarai, Banaras (U.P.). Miuiitaj Begum, W/o SayedAbrar AU, aged about 56 years, Caste Musalman, R/o Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) at present at Flat No. 6, 2nd Floor, Shree Ram Tower, Vyapar Vihar, Bflaspur (C.G.). State of Chliattisgarh fhrough CoUector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G-). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IKDIA. (SB :Hon'bte Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.| Rresent:- Petitionei- in person. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 4. Respondents N.oy.1 to 3 not noticed. OKDER (Passedoa 03/01/2012} -By this netition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legaUty aad propriely of the order dated' d6/11/2011 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Bflaspur (C.G.) in Misc^Civil Appeal No. 40/2011 affinnirig the order dated 20/10/2011 passed by Firat CivU Judge Class-2, Takhatpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ia civfl suit No. 61-A/2011 whereby Ftrst -Civfl Judge Class-2, Takhatpur has dismissed th.e appUeation for grant of teniporaiy iujunction tUed on behalf of tbe •^- BSI 4. 6. petitioner wbile afnrming fhe order 4th Additional District Judge, BUaspur has disirussed the appeal filed on behalfofthe petitioner. petitioner in person subxnit fhat at fhe time of disinissiag appUcation for graat of teinporaiy iajiinction and disinissiag fhe appeal bofh the Court below have not considered the fact fhat present petitioner was in possession of disputed property and forged photographs have Been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3. Petitioner in person further subinits that bofh the Courts below have also not considered the fact that respondents No. 1 to 3 had started construction over suit property owned and possessed by present petitioner. Copy of the plaiat, copy of the affidavits, copy of the order impugned, copy of fhe permission granted respondent No. 1 and otfaer docuiuents perused. On due consideration, I do not find any jurisdicti.onal error or itlegality ia ttie order impugaed'requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India. Consequenfty, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at fhe stage of admission itsetf. Interim. appUcation is also disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge . / ' •**>-