tc IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( 227 ) No. U O^&Qt 2009 PETITIONERS: ^^0^^^^ !5.^^?% ^^' ^^" .?...••-" y' ^o^e6) ^s^ 0^r RESPONDENTS: 1. Abdul Jabbar S/o bdul Subhan, aged about 65 years, [DEAD] through Legal Representatives of the Petitioner/Plaintiff. A] Sahidun Nisha W/o late AbdulJabbar, age about 75 years. B]Abdul Jamil S/o Late Abdul Jabbar,age about 55 years. CJAbdul Naim S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, aged about 50 years. DjAbdul Hakim S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, aged about 48 years. E] Abdul Gaffar S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, aged about 45 years. F] Abdul Sattar S/o Late Abdul Jabbar, aged about 45 years. AU are R/o Masanganj, Madhyanagri Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). G] Gulshan Been W/o Mustaq , age about 53 years R/o Madan Mahal, Jabalpur , District Jabalpur (MP). H] Kamroon Nisha W/o Salim, aged about 46 years, R/o Pandri Raipur, District Raipur (CG). I] Bano aged about 33 years W/o Asif. JjJulekha aged about 32 years W/o Ramjan. Both are R/o Mangla, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). K-^V^dlA, ^^33 ^^ K)| <. ^ K^V ^l^ T4.^r^ %>xv-^&s£Sh'^A/'AA3^ ^\-^^'y CC_(L^) ^•t.^-"^ ,,.^ ^.....,.. .,^1'.^ Mohaininad Kasun Qureshi S/o A-c" 1. a) Hajimuddin Qureshi (DEAD) through L, Rs of Respondent/defendant. Moham-niad Ibrahim Qureshi S/o Mohaminad Kasira, aged about 50 years, R/o Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Qr.NO. LIG 135 District Raipur (CG). f^ % ^5<^S%.. 'y'^y^s ^s-s^y b) Mohammad Ismaiel Qureshi S/o Mohammad Kasim, aged about 50 years,r/o Raja Talab, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). c) Moham.mad Sharif Qureshi S/o Mohainmad Kasim, aged about 45 years, R/o Raja Talab, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). d) Umraon Bee W/o Ahmed Hussain, aged about 50 years, R/o Nehru Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). e) Samin @ Sakella D/o Mohammad Kasim, aged about 28 years, R/o Banjari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through CoUector , Bilaspur (CGO. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No. 40280f2009 Petitioners Respondents AbdulJabbar & Others Versus Mohammad Kasim Qureshi & Others WRiT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Shri Bharat Singh Rajput, Advocate for petitioners. Shri Kshitz Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1 a to e. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 2/State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4th day of December, 2009) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. Feeiing aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2008 (Annexure P/5), passed by the Vlth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (CG), in Civil Appeal No. 29-A/2008, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was rejected, the petitioners have fiied the instant pet'rtion. The brief facts of the case are that, the piaintiffs instituted a suit against the respondents seeking relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court hofding that the petitioners are not in possession over the suit property. In an appeal preferred by the petitioners appiication under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC filed has been dismissed by the appellate court holding that since as per flndings of trial court, the petitioners are not in possession over the suit property, therefore, prima-facie no case is made out by the petitioners for grant of temporary injunction. Shri Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the said decree is under challenge before the appeliate court and as per Annexure P/4, the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit property, the order passed by the trial court is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 5. At present there is a decree passed by the trial court in which a categorical finding has been given that the petitioners are not in possession over the suit property. What wou!d be the effect of Annexure P/4 would be decided by the First Appellate Court at the tlme of final hearing of the appeal which is scheduied to be heard on 09.12.2009. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima-facie the petitioners are in possession over the suit property. 6. In view of the above, 1 do not find any merit in the petition so as to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 7. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, shouid refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 8. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. However, it is observed that the First Appellate Court shall decide the suit on the date fixed by it on its own merits without their being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge