HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 536/2005 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 R. 1W) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) ' Present:—. Ms. Hamida Siddique, Advocate for the appellans. Shri Amrito Das, Adocate for the respondent No. 1. None for the respondent No. 2. ORAL- ORDER (passed on 2/6/2009) l. By this appeal appellants has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 5/3/2005 passed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in ciYil suit No. 2/05.. 2. Order is challenged on the ground that respondent NO. l is a tress passer his possession over MIG is not legal possession therefore it could not be protected under Order 39 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the code’). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no order of allotment has been issued on the name of respondent NO. 1 and without order of allotment respondent NO‘ l is not entitled to oocupy the quarter or take possession therefore his possession not legal and is of encroacher which .. s t v 3 APPELLANTS 1. Bilaspur Davelopment ‘ Authority DEFENDMTS (Presently Municipal Corporation Bilaspur) through-Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur. 2. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, through —Its Commissioner. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. vRajeshwar Namdeo, aged about 43 PLAINTIFF years son of Shankarlal Namdeo, resident of Nutan Enclave, MIG 2/4 ‘ . y 2. New Sarkanda, Bilaspur (CG). Pramod Kumar Choudhmy, aged about 34 years, son of J.L. Choudhari, resident of Qtr. No. M-lO, Nutan Colony, Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). could not be protected under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. q . Order impugned perused. It reveals that present respondent No. 1 has applied for allotment of the suit house and has paid substantial money. Present appellant has registered the name of respondent No. 1. . He was entitled for allotment and he is in possession of the suit house. After considering the material court below has granted injunction on the basis of symbol of title and factum bf possession. Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the order impugned l do not find any substance in the miscellaneous appeal. Consequently, appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing itself. . No order as to costs. ‘4 /ffSIf/i T. P. Sharma Judge M