t( Petltioner Plaintlff HSGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR Writ Petition i'Art.227i No.407 of2u11 Smt.Samund Bai VV/o. Bahadur Singh; Aged about - 54 years; Occupation - Houss Vvirs; R/o - Chhote Atarmuda, Raigarh—Tahsi! and District - Raigarh (C.G.) Resoondenis Defendants 2. Versus Fatte Ram S/o - Shri Balmukund Patel; aged^ aboul - 48 yesrs; Owupation-Agricuiturist; Tahsii and District - Raigarh (C.G.) Stats of Chhatiisgarh, Through : Coliector Rsigarh Tahsii and Distrtot -Raigarh (C.G.) Shukis S/o. Late Ganssh aged about - 45 years; Occupation - Business; R/o — Gaushalapara Raigarh; Tahsi! a."d Districf - Rsigarh (C.G.) Cvv'rit Petiiion under Article 227 of the Constitution of india) Mr.'vineef Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.fvi.K.Sinha, counsei for respondent hio.1 . Ms Sangeeta h/iishra, Panei La'A'yer for respondent No.2/State. Mr.S.K.Tiwari, counset for respondent No.3. ^' (S5: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) QRDcR (12-12-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Artteie 227 of the Constitution of India the petlttoner has chaiienged the legaiity and propriety of the order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Fourth Addittonai District Judge (F.T.C.), Raigarh, in Misc. Civil Appeai No.07/2009, affirming the oraer.-datsd 4.10.2006 passed by ths First Civii judge Ciass-it, Raigsrh, jn GiviS Suit No.280-A/'2006, whereby appiication for grant of temporary irijunction fiied on behaif of resppndent No.1 hss been ailowed. "^- have heard iearned counsftl •?i ei ror tne parties, perusea ine orcier impugned, order of the triai Court, copy of the piaint, copy of the written siatement anri copyofthe counier-claim. 3. Present respondent No.1 has fiied appilcation for grant of temporary inlunction before the irial Court on 12.5.2003 ciaim, thereafter hs has fiisd counter-ciaim on 15.5.2004 whereby he has ciaimed possession and mesne profit. Vide order dated 4.10.2006 First CiVii Judge Ciass-ii, Raigarh has aliowed the appiication for grant of temporsry mjunction filsd on behaif of regpondent No.1. Before fiiing counier-ciaim appiication filed on behalf of respondeni hio.1 for temporary' injuncfion was not justified and fiilng counter-ciaim, in which he has spscificaiiy ciaimed ihe reiief of possession and mesne profit. There was no propriety for granting temporar/ injunction in favour of respondent No.1. Whiie granting temporary injunction in favour or respondent No.1 the trial Court has committed iilegaiity and whiie affirming i'ne ordsr passed by the tria! Couri the iower appeilate Court has aiso commltted iiiegailty. 4. in exercise of supeni'isor/ jurisdiction, the wrii petition is aiiowed. Order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Fourth Additionai Sssstons Judge (F.T.C.), Raigarh in Misc.Civii Appeai No.07/2009 and order daied 4.10.2006 passed by the First Civii Judge Ciass-!!, Raigarh, in Civii Suii No.280-A/'2006 are hereby quashed. No order as io costs. Sd/- T.P. Sbarma Judge