li ^—^•^?^ 1 ^^a.^ '^. /^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER/: (Plaintiff) Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.2513 of2011 Mayabai W/o Shri Shyam Sunder, aged about 65 years, R/o Daupara Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Versus 1. Koduram S/o Late Chelaram, aged about 35 years. 2. Aruna (Thothi) D/o Late Chelaram, aged about 38 years. 3. Mannulal S/o Late Chelaram, aged about 40 years. All Respondent No.1 to 3 R/o Andrew Ward, Daupara Mungeli, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: ^ Mr. K.A. Ansari, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.L. Bajpayee, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, counsel for the respondents. SinaleBench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (16-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged" legality and propriety of the order dated 25-4-201 1 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli in Misc. Civil Appeal No.1/2011, affirming the order dated 21-2-2011 passed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Mungeli in Civil Suit No.S-A/2011, whereby the application for grant of temporary injunction filed on behalf of the petitioner herein has been dismissed and same has been affirmed by the Additional District Judge. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused theorder impugned, the order dated 21-2-2011, copy of the plaint, copy of the application, copy of the reply and copy of the sale deed. 3. While dismissing the application for grant of temporary injunction both the Courts below have considered one map sheet No.46 which shows the constructed house and not open land. As per claim of the petitioner herein, the respondents herein have tried to dispossess the petitioner from the land situated between the house and part of open land with shed of the ^.^'^^^ IN,.^- petitioner. In these circumstances, before passing any order, parties in courts were under obligation to consider the possession on the basis of local inspection. The plaintiff has not filed any application for issuance of Commission for local inspection nor any party has submitted demarcation report. The Court has also not directed the parties for local inspection or rejected the application on the basis of absence of such local inspection report and thereby committed illegality. 4. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Both the orders are hereby quashed. The petitioner may file application for local inspection in terms of Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC and if such application is filed within thirty days from today, the Court shall consider such local inspection report and pass order afresh on the application for grant oftemporary injunction. Till such date i.e. passing of the order, parties shall maintain status quo as it exists today. No order as to costs. 5. I.A.Nos.1 & 3 stand disposed of. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge