:€1^ BCH^ INTHEMIGHCOURTOFCMHATflSGARHATBIl.ASPlJR CHMATTISGARM -'IP——^..:.;::' •1..'' '.1 WRITPEfmON^Na.^S^/ZOGs l'-->^^.:"; •• ' ' '" -'' .. 1: 1 , PETltIONER/ PIaintiff ^'s^yi ^^ :;>--:\^'\>- v^y^^ ^^^y,./ •>%'-'' <?<6° .A.- *^'- Smt.~ Shanti Bai, vvife bf Sheshdeo Singh TKakur; aged about 40 years, resident of VDiage Kumbhli; tafisil Jagdatpur; District Bastar ''Chhattisgarh". VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ Defendants 1. Cha itu, Son of Etiamf-u; ageicf 55 years; t-esidenf df Villagi^ Rofma; Tat-isil JagclalF)ut-;^ Disfrict- Bastar, "Chhaftis^aifhi^ State of , CHhattisgarh, throygh Colleetbr Bastar, DistriCt Bastar; at Jagdatpur. ; WRITPETITION LJN[:)BRARTICLE,2270FTH@ CONSTITUTION QFINDIA. ^ ^g^t R^l Bai a ss^'s B&^ istia :B — .iV./- ',\ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (O No. 687/2008 PETITIONER : Smt. Shanti Bai Versus RESPONDENTS : Chaitu and another Appearance: No.2. Shri R.N. Jha, counsel for the petitioner. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent ^. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF ESTDIA ORAL ORDER (18.02.2011) This is a petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia challenging the appellate order dated 30 OctQber, 2007 allowing the appeal preferred by defendant No.l/respondent No.l which in tum was preferred by the said defendant No.l to challenge the Trial Courts order dated 16/11/2006 allowing the petitioner's/plaintifFs application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 ofCPC. (2) The plaintiffclaims to have purehased the land from defendant No.l by sale-deed dated 1/02/2000and moved an application for mutation, however on dbjection by defendaiit No.l plaintifif was directed to file civil suit. According the plaintifF she is in possession of the suit land, hovvever defendant No.l is interfering in her possession. • (3) The Trial Court has found that the plaintiff has a good prima ^facie case for adjudication in the suit and iftemporary injunctic!n is M .! II 1.1 •MN.,! '.'.•st'-assisQ., ^ /y^ ^ rC^j^ /"Ip^"^?J v^^" Pl i/it;' 1-^) 2- not granted she shall suiGfer irreparable loss as the balance of convenience is also in her favour. The First Appellate Court has interfered with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court and has allowed the appeal and thus vacated the temporary injunction granted bv the Trial Court. (4) The suit was filed some times in the year 2006. The Trial Courts order was passed on 16/11/2006 and fhe appellate court decided the appeal on 30 October, 2007. The present petition was submitted on 30 January, 2008. Thus, Ifae proceedings are pending for last about five years. There is no interim order in favour ofthe petitioner in this writ petition. (5) Considering totality of the cireumstances and particularly for the reason that the Trial Court had once found existence of prima facie case in favour of plaintif$'petitioner this Court deems it proper to dispose ofthis writ petition with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose ofthe suit as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this ^•- order. (6) With the above observation the present petition under Article 227 ofConstitution oflndia is disposed of. sd)^^iswa ¥^A£dge