[/5 c ,X *9 N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION LC! NO. 357, OF 2008 PETITIONER / Smt. Sunanda Devi Jain aged about 48 years, W/o Shri Kamal Chand Jain, R/o 5, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1. Dr. Prashant Manohar Bhagwat, S/o Dr. Manohar Ramchandra Bhagwat, Dr. Smt. Megha BhagWat, W/o Dr. Prashant Manohar Bhagwat, Both residents of House No 7, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) /3. Raipur Co-operative Housing Society through its Secretary, Office Choubey Colony, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) /4. Nagar Palika Nigam, Raipur Through Commissioner, Office Nagar Palika Nigam Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT- PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN. M NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITs DlRecrlon OR DIRECTIONS W I r , \x’ HIGH QOURT W ¢HHATT!§GARH AT BILASPUF 2 m Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prgshant Kumar Mishra ’ Wn't Petition {C} No. 857 12008 PETkTlONER Smt. Sunanda Devi Jain ~ Vetsus RESPONDENTS ' Dr. Prashant Manohar Bhagwgt and othets \ 3hn Ash‘sh Shnvastava With Shn Devendra Patel counset for the pahhoner Shn Kshmj Sharma counsel to: the respondenls No 1 & 2 shn Pankaj Agrawa! counse! for respondent No 4 None for :espondent No 3 wmr Farmer; unmeRmm: zzr QF THE cowaumu o= , INDIA, ORA!- wnR {25.1 0.201 0) 7 The Coum below have rejectQd the petitioner‘s I plaintiffs payer for giant of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from raising construction of Nursing Home on the suit iand. (2) The respondents No.1 & 2 have entered appearance and have med " apoiication for taking the status of construch‘on‘ on record.” it is submitted in‘ the application and which is also reiiecting in (the photograph that hie a V construciion of the Nursing Home is compiete. Learned oounselofor the *' a respondents would submit that this Court was pleasod’to grant an order of sh'tus-quo on 1640.2008 and the photographs fried by thorn dopicsime l _ r status ofthe construotion on a date prior to 16-10-2008; i 1 Y favour of the petitioner yet since the interim order of status-quo granted: by V l t; (3) Though, both the Coum below have refused to exercisediscretioninw (this l Court is operative for last more than two years, without expressing any ‘ ’vx ~ W ‘ t W ' w opinion on merits ofthe €389. Mwntpsmion is diggosgdiqfgwigh g giww K mat the interim owe: ofmwo‘k'nranted by mis‘qoiqg; “4134952908. A wilh rewfd to comm. I-oniqn he Plaint‘schedule‘ land span hgmaim-ine/fdw,‘ mm“ WW of me suit. (4) wan, thwremnthe Wvetmon stands diswnt _: Sdl- . ' iPrashant Kumar Mlshra ' J_udge 1 “‘l a