PLAIMIFF Sm: 3inda Bai, W/o Ghanamm Sahu Aged about 57years, R/o Viilage Panda, Up Tahsil Nawapara, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur m6.) Versus RESPONDENTS : I Punau, Aged 55 Years,, S/a Bodhau Sahu, A I 2. Ishwari, Aged 45 Years, S/o Samara Sahu. 30th R/o Viltage *Ponde, Subtahsilv Nawapara, Tahsil - Abhanpur District ‘Raipur {c.G.) V, v 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Cotiector Rat‘pur ,Distt. Ram'ur (ca) . , &u,$m. awn m§§¢za§§ agz 326 M HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 7458/2009 PETITIONER : Smt. Binda Bai Versus Punau and others RESPONDENTS : Appearance: Shri Atul Pandey, counsel for the petitidner. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION‘OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (25.09.2010) The petitioner is the plaintiiT before the trial court. (2) Her application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was dismissed by the trial court on 16/09/08 (Annexure P-2) and the said order has been amrmed by the appellate court by the impugned order dated 20m August, 2009 (Annexure P-l). The trial court as well as the appellate court have recorded the finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case, as it has not been proved that in pursuance to the order passed by Naib Tahsildar on 14/09/2006, actual physical possession was delivered to the petitioner/plaintilf. (3) This court had earlier directed the petitioner to place on record copy of the order passed by Naib Tahsildar on 14/09/2006 along with any other document by the plaintiff by which she can establish that she is in actual l l t physical possession. The petitioner has, filed copy of the order dated 14/09/2006 passed by the Tahsildar, Abhanpur, District Raipur. By this order the petitioner’s application under section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land y??? Revenue Code for recovery of possession was allowed. Petitioner has flled another document which is order sheet of the coult of Naib Tahsildar, Navapara recorded on 13/1 1/2006 to the ejfect that since possessiOn has been delivered to the petitioner no thither action is required. The report of delivery of possession submitted by the Revenue Inspector mentions that the petitioner was delivered symbolic possession ofthe suit land. (4) In View of the above, the finding recorded by the court below that the plaintih‘ is not in actual physical possession does not appear to be perverse. (5) The courts below have not committed any error ofjurisdiction or have recorded any arbitrary or perverse findings while considering the plaintiffs prayer for grant oftemporary injunction. (6) In View of the above, this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India has no substance, it deserves to be, and is dismissed. (7) Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the trial court may be directed to dispose ofthe suit as early as possible. (8) In View of the nature of dispute, it is directed that the trial court shall do well to dispose of the suit as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy ofthis order. ‘ ‘ Prashant e Sdl- Kumar Mishra if Judge c 1