'.? 6) 1"^*^- H!eHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.1606 OF 2005 PETITIONERS/ Rospondents/Defendants RRSPONDENTS/ Appellant/piaintilf Defendant No.3 1. Shiv Baran, S/o Parganva Rathore, aged about 70 years. 2. Bhoop Singh @ Thakur Prasad, S/o Sh'iv Baran, aged 27 years. Both are the R/o Aandu, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Biiaspur (CG). Versus 1. Chhatar Singh, S/o Deen Bandhu Rathore, agedl about 42 years, R/o Semera, Tahssl Pendra Road and District Bilaspur (CG). 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Coltector, Biiaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satfeh K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the petitioners. Shri J.A. Lohanl, counsel for the respondent No.1 Shri Rajendra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 17tn day of October, 2008) By this petition, the petitioners/defendants No.1 & 2 impugn the order dateri 15-3-20f^ (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Add'rtional District Judge. Fast Track Coiirt, Pendra Road. District Bilaspur. »n civil appeal No.3/2005, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No.l/plaintiff was allowed and the interim injunctjon in respeftt of the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedute land was gmnted. 2) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the respondent Nol/plaintiff preferred a civil sujt for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintifF also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {forshort "the CPC") for temporary injunction. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court. Shri Patel further submits that againsf the said order, the plaintiff fited an appeal before the Additional Djstrict Judge, Fast Track Court, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur. The Addjtional District Judge by order dated 15-3-2005 allowed the appeal ofthe plaintifF l eamedl counsel submits that ..^^^-A' ^'^ ^^^% ^ .^' /y' "^' '/'^ i ®., 1. i lli^^ R ^. ; y /^' .•^. ^"' 2- the Court below has not considered the entries in land records jn jts letter and spirit because In a!t the land records the name of the defendant No.1 is there. The Court below has relied only on the affidavits of those persons who are notthe residents ofvillage Aandu. 3) Per contra, learned counsel app^iring on behaff of the respondent No 1/plaintiff supported the order dated 15-3-2005 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pendra Road, District Bliaspur. 4) Having heardl learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appendedl thereto. The respondent No.l/plaintiff has a pnma fafee case in hfe fa\/our and the balance of convenience also lies in his favour. Leamed trial Court has not considered a!l those aspects whereas the iearned Additlonal District Judge after going through the facts and circumstances of the case passed ttie order in favour of the plaintiff and the jnterim injunction in respeot of the possession of the plaintiff jn the plaint schectule land was granted. The same is unexceptionable, just & proper and does not warrant any interference. 5) This Court in exercise of ite supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ targe on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6) Sn view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. No order asto coste. 7) Consequentiy. M.(W.).P.No.1248/2005 stands disposed of Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge