^ ~ Petitioner Oi.?»mf»ff Res&ondenSs Defendants I"' ^iiGH COURT OF CHHATTISCSARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art.227) hSo.63®}of 2010 Kedarnath Saraf, S/o Lat©Shri Laxrai DMB"ad Ssr-f, ®g©Habout 62 yeam, R/o Qondpara, Bilaspur, Distrtef-Bi'jaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. SmtSavitri Saraf, W/o Late Kanhaiyaja! Saraf. 2. SmtKirti Bai @ Munni Bal Saraf, W/o Late Kanhaiyalai Saraf. ag©dabout59 years, 3. Siddharth Saraf, S/o Late Kanhai^lal Saraf, ageci about 43 years, 4. Subhash Saraf, S/o iafe Kanhaiyalal Saraf, aged about 32 years, - 5. Shantun Saraf, S/o L^e Kanhalyaiai Saraf, ag©clabout 29 y@ars. 6. Swati Saraf, D/o Late Kanhasyalai Saraf, aged about 37 years Ail R/o Gondpara (Subhash Nagar), TahsH & District-BJJaspur (C.G.) 7. State of Chhattjsgarh, through th@ Collector, Biiaspur. District-Bil^pUF (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Mr.Bhar^t Rajput, counsel for th®petits'oner. Mr.Saiim Kazs, counsei for respondents No.l to 6. Ms Sangeeta Mishra, Pane! Lawyerfcy respondent NoJ/State. ^^'! (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDERfORAL) (23-8-20HT By this writ petition undsr Artid©227 of the Constitution of indja the petitionor has chaiienged the legalify & propriety of the order dated 4.10.2010 passed by the 3rd Adcdtjonal Distrtet Judge. Biiaspur in Mfsc.CiviJ Appeal No.20/10. afRrming the ordsr rejsction appiication for iniunction dat©d@.8.2©07passed by the 7th CJviJ Judge Class-ij, Bi!aspur In Cjvjj Suit No.e©A/07,wh©re&y considsring the old dispute and present dispute the Court below has not granted injunction in favour ofthe present petitioner. -^- 2. ! have heard iearned counsel for th@ parties, perused the order impugnad and copies of other orders fiied on behalf of ttie petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner ^jibmits that In previoi^ gFoundl of iittgation both the Courte beicw havo held th@ possession ofthe present p@tittener, but in second round of Sitigation, both the Courts beiow h@^e refus^j to grant injunction o?der. . 4. On the other hand, learned counsei for respondenls No.1 to 6 oppcKses th© petition. 5. Learned PaneS Lawyer for rospondent No.7 formaiiy opposcs tho pQtition. 6. Previously injunction appiication was decided and presentiy injundfcion application fiied by th©petitioner has been dismtssed by boti the Gourts below. Both the Courte below have not arrived at a finding in b@th round of timitations relating to possession of the pariy, flnding of possession, pdma facie case or question of irreparablo ioss at th@ time of decidlsng the appSication falsd under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of ttie Code of Civil R'oc^jure, 1908 is prima facie finding and not conclusiv®finding v^ich wiJI not oifectthe rights and iiabiiity of the parties finaily. They ar©required to adduce ©videnoe in support of theSr ciaim. 7» With the aforesaid obsorvation, i do not fsnd any Jilegaiity or impropriety in the order jmpugned warranting interference in exercise of sypervlsory jurisdiction. Consequentiy, the writ petition is iiable to be dismis@eci and it is heroby dismissed. However, considering the oid dlsputo relating to possession, the trial Court is directed to ©xpediteth@ trial and ^©cideti© same as earSy as possibie. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^