£§ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTI$GARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETiTlON {C} N6“ £1790 OF 2mm PETETIGNER Smt. Sharda Dubey, aged 54 years, W/o Shri Shanti Nath Subey, R/a viuage L§ngiyadih, Tah. D§strict BRawm (SQ. Verwg RESPONDENTS 1. Nagar Paiik Nigam, Biiaspur, i‘hrough Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam, Bilaspur. 2. State of Chhaitisgarh, through Secretary, Depattment of Revenue, Matraiaya, DKS Building, Raipur (CG). 3" Gram Panchayat, Lingiyadih, ViNage Lingiadih. through Sarpanchi Gram Panchayat Lingiadih, Bilaspur (CG). (Writ petition und&f Afticie 226/227 of ihe Consiitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri $atish K. Agnihotri, J. Presant : Shri Kishore Patei, counsei for the petitioner. GRAL QRDER (Passed ’ on this ‘ 2“a day af ‘aaghember, D .t fl;GG8; \ Being aggrieved. by the ordef dated 4-2-2{;0& (Antwexure-PM) passed by the Additioriai District Judge, Biiaspur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.5812006, whereby the Ieamed Additional District Judge rejected ihe Misc. Civii Appeai preferred by the petiiianer/piaintiff and maintained the arder dated 18-9-2006 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Ninth Civil Judge Class-ii, Biiaspur, in civil suit No.56/200$, whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected the application of the petitioneriplaintiff filed under Grder XXXIX Rule 1, 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC’), the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Conetitution of indie 2) Shri‘ Patei, teamed counsel appearing for the petitiener, would euhrnit that earlier the petitioner/plaintiff tiled e writ petitien before this Court, which has been dismissed by arder dated 5-5-2006 (Annexure-P/3), reeewing liberty to the petitioneriplaintitf t0 workout iegal remediee before the jurisdictional Civil Court. Learned counsel further submits that, thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred a eivil suit before the Ninth Civii Judge Class~ll, Bilaspur, being civii suit Ne.56i2006 along with en appiication under order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 read wiih'eectibn 151 at the CFC. Learned Civil Judge without appreoiating the facts and circurnetenoes of the \’ case in its letter end spirit rejected the application under Grder XXXIX Rule 4 ca$e in its letter and spirit rejected the appiication under Order XXX!X Rule 1, 2 read wii'h Section 151 of the CPC. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitionen‘piaintiif preferred a Misc. Civil Appeal before the Court of the Additiohai District Judge, Bilaspur. The Said Court haS also rejeci‘ed ihe appeal 0f the petitioner and maintained the order passed by the learned Cirrii Juiige. n\ e! ; i have heard leernee? counsel appearing for the peiiitioher/plaihtiff, perused the eleedings and the deem-heme; appenried ihereto. The peiiiieheripieiniiff alleged ihal? ‘rhe Municipal Cerperatiun, Bileepur‘ raisee‘ eonsiruelion on the land bearing Khasre Ne298/25 whereas ihe Municipal Cm‘gmreilon, Bilaepur’, staied ihaii they are rieing the consirueiiori works on hie lane bearing khasra No.198/2. The Civil Judge while rejecting the epplieetion under Qrder XXXIX Rule 1, 2 reed with Seciion 151 of the CPC ehserved thai, pn'ma fecie, no case hae been made out‘ and balance of convenience is also net in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The Additional District Judge held that dispute ardse between the‘partiee regarding demarcation and on the basis of the demarcation. the matter cannot be settled. 4) it appears that the relief has been rejected on the ground that it is not clear as to whether the construction is on the property of the petitioner when admitted case of the Municipal Corporation is that the construction was raised on the iand bearihg khasra N071§8!2, whioh is owned by the Municipat Corporation, Bilaspur. 5) Be that as it may; after demarcation) the petitioner ie at iiloerty to move the triai Court again'tor appropriate relief, it so advised, under the provisions of law. 6) in view of the above, it is evident that the petition invoives disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided in this petition. 7) This court in exercise of-its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the'court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularityor jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 8) in View of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. St) Consequently, pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. r Sdl— .7 Mi 7/ Satish K. Agnihotr'r Judge