t^ AFK Petitioner D^ndant HiGHCOURTOFCHHATTIS©AjFLH:_a WntPetitjon_(227LNo._S388_9f2Q08 Ramnath, S/o. Shamelal Sahu, aged about 57 years, R/o- Bodsara, Tahsjl" Janjgir, Dlstrict Janjgir-Champa (CG). Resgondente Baintiff Versus 1. Ramchandra, S/o. Tirath Ram Ya^av, aged about 62 years, restdent of Tahsll JanJgir-Janjgir, Distrfct Janjgjr-champa 2. The State of Chha^sgarh through Coltector, Janjgir DislrSct Janjgir-Champa (Writ Petition under Articte 227 of Constitution of india) SB: Hon'ble iVSr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. Subhash Yadav, counsel for the petjtioner. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate Generai forthe respondent No.2/Stete< ORAL ORDER (Passed on thss 17th day Qf Novemiser, 2008) By this petition fiied under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of (ndia, the petitioner seeks to chaitenge legality and vatidity ©fth®Impugned order dated 17-7-2008 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Distrtct Judge, Janjgir- Champa in Misc. Civii Appeal No. 6/2008, whereby the appeal was allowed and the application fited under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of fte Code crf Civil Proceclure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") before the court of Civit Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir in Civit Suit No. 48-A/2007, was rejected. 2) The ptaintiff/first respondent tiled a plaint b^fore the CiviS Judge, Ctass U, Janjgir, Distrtct Janjgir-Champa for permanent injunction. The piaintiff thereafter filed an apptication under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of th@ CPC for grant of status quo and temporary Injundlion again^ the petitioner - 2 - from interfering with the possession of the pSaintiff/'first respondent. The Civil Juclge, CSass ii, Janjgir-Champa, by order dated 11-2-2008 (Annexure P/7) dismissed the appiication obsemng that the plaintiff/first respondent has faiied to establlsh hls possession lawfujty, therefore, in a casuat manner the appiication was rejected. In appeal flled by the plaintiff^first respondent in the Court of District Judge, Janjgir-Champa, the Dlstrict Judge ailowed the appeai and granted temporary injyndion as prayed for in the appjication fiied under Order 39 Ru!e 1 and 2 of the CPC. The District Judge has rsghtty corne to the conciusion that the application was filed for permanent injunction without seeking a deciaration and on the averment made in the pialnt jt was, prima facie, found that piaint schedute land was ancestral properiy and according to the plaintiff, plaintiff was sn possesslon of the property. Therefore, the finding of the triai Court that the petltioner has not proved, prima facie, his possesslon {awfuliy, is contrary to the welS settied principles of Saw. The entire suit was based on possession. The finding with regard to the balance of convenlence and Jrreparabie loss was not considered by the tria! Court. Learned District Judge has rightly come to the concSusion that the plaintlff/petitioner has no right apparently to interfere with the possession of the piaintiff/flrst respondent The interference with the possessson during pendency of sult wouid cause irreparabie Soss and inconvenlence to the piaintlff/first respondent. Thus, R4isc. appeal was ailowed and the Interlm injunctlon as prayed for was granted. 3) I have heard iearned counseS appearing for the partles, perused the pleadlngs and documents appended thereto. 4) i have considered a!l the aspects of the matter. There is no IrreguSarity, JEiegaiity or junsdlctionaS error In recording finding by the Distrlot Judge that th©piaintiflF/first respondent has made out a, prima face, case -3- and if the petitioner/defendant was atSowed to Interfea'e with the possession of the ptaintiff/first respondent, the same wouid cause irreparabie joss and balance of inconvenlence is also in favour offtie pSaintifKfirst respondent. 5) This Court, in exercise of its supen/isory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constltution of india, shouid refraln itself from Interfering with the order passed by the court beiow, except in such cases where perversity, iliegality, irregularity or jurisdictionai error is wnt iarge on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6) Thus, the order dated 17-7-2008 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Searned District Judge, Janjgir-Champa is unexceptionabie, Just & proper and does not warrant interference. 7) Accordingiy, the petition is dlsmissed in Ismsne. Conssquentty, I.A.No.1 stands dlsposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raju IB^