1 SiNEl: ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATl'ISGARH AT BILASPUR w w.p.caa^ NO. / 2008 TV^ PETITIONER bvA »^< \^ ^^ <t^€^y ^s^ % .^ RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^l. €^^ Laxmi Bai, aged about 56 years, D/o- Amrit Lal Agrawal, Wife of Shri Anand Agrawal, r/o Amrit Chhaya, Near Shankar Nagar Bottle House, Behind Golchha Complex, Teli Bandha, Raipur, Tehsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through Chief Secretary, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Tehsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Raipur, Tehsil and Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) The Additional Tehsildar, (Shri Pulak Bhattacharya) Tehsil Office-Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Suresh Tiwari, Son of Shri D.P.Tiwari, Editor- "Rashmi Prawah" Journal, At- Pami Block Studio, K.K.Road, Maudahapara, Ripur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. -2. 3. 4. SBa mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'bIeSairiPradiantKumarMishra Writ Petition fO No. 6725^008 PETITIONER : LaximBai Vwsaas RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Ors Aooearance: Shri Ratan Pusty, eounsel for tfae petitioner. Shri R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.l, 2and3. Shri S.K. Dadsena, counsel for the respondentNo.4. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (27.08.2010) In the instant writ petition, tfae petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order passed by llie 7<h Additioaal District Judge, Raipur, dismissing her appeal under Ordw 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC which was preferred against the order passed by the Trial Court on 22/10/2008 dismissing her application for grant of temporary injunetion under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 ofCPC. (2) While issuing notice to the respond^its, tiiis court, on 2/12/2008 had directed that status quo, as obtaining on tfaat day in regard to the suit land shall be mainlamed till the next date of hearing. The writ petition remained pending and has been Usted for the first time thereafter for hearing on admission. (3) Leamed counsel for parties inform that during pendency ofthe wnt petition, the recording of evidence of the parties have already ;;^SI 9 'c^ -^^w^^ -2- taken aad fte major part of the evidence of the plaintifife witnesses have alreadybwn recorded. (4) In view ofthe above and without commenting attytMng on Ae merits, it is directed that Ae Trial Court shall do well to dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within a period ofsix months. During pendency ofthe suit, the interim order ofstatus quo passed by this court shall remain in operation. (5) It is made clear that Ifais court has not expressed any o^niott on the merits of the case of either party and that the interim order of status quo is continued since it has remained in operation for more than 1 Vz years. Needless to say that Ae suit shall be decided on Ae strength ofthe evidence addueed by both the parties and the order of status quo passed by tfiis court is without prejudice to the rights ofthe parties to be determined in the suit. (6) Witfa the above observation, the petition stai«lsdisposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge r"