li^ Petitioner PSaintiff Resoondenfs Defendante HSGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art.227) No.6188 of2©10 Kedamath Saraf, S/o LaAe Shri Laxrai Prasad Saraf, ageci about 62 years, R/o Gondpara, BMaspur, District-BMaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Smt.Kirti Bai W/© Lat© Kanhaiyaiai Saraf, R/o Gondpara (Subhash N^ar), Tahsil & District-BtSaspur (C.©.) ^ 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Coitector, Biiaspur, DistncS-Bilaspur (C.G.) (Writ PetitSon under Articie 227 ofthe CoRStituti@n of Sndla) jyir.Bharat Rajput, counsej for the petitioner. SVSr.Salim Kazi, counsel for respondent No.1. Ms Sangeeta Mishra, Pand Lawyerfor r@spondent No.2/State. (SB: Hon'bje Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDERfORAU 723-8-2611) 1. By this wrst petition under Artide 227 of ths Constitu^on of india th©petitioner has chaSienged the iegaiity & propri©fyof the order dated 4.10.2010 passed by the 3rd AdcSitlonal Djstrict JucSge, Bilaspur in Misc.Civil Appesil N©.21/10, affirming the order rejection application for injunction dat@d 9.8.2007 passed by the 7th Civij Judge CSass-il, Bsiaspur in CiviS @ujt N0.67A/07, whereby considQring the oSd dispute and prosent dispute ttie Court fc^low has not granted injunction in favour ofthe present petitioner. 2. 1 have heard ieamed counsel for ttie parties, perused fte order smpugned and copies of other orders filled on behaif of the petitioner. 3. Learned counse! for the petitioner submits that in pFevious ground of titigation both the Courts below have heid the possession ofthe presentpetifion@r, but in second round of iitigation, both ths Courfcs below have refused to grant injunction order. 4. On ths other hand, iearned counsel for re^pwdent No.1 oppos^ the petition. 5. Learned Panei Lawyer for respondent No.2 formaily oppos^ th@ petition. ""--^ ^l '!^:^ ^,'-^ j j %. ^ (^' -^- 6. Previousiy injunction appiication was decided and preserrtiy injunctien appiication filed by the petitioner has been dismisse^l by boti the Courts below. Both the Courts beiow have not arrived at a flnding in fca?th round of ismitatlons reSating to possession of the party, finditiig of possession, pEima facie case or quostton of irreparable ioss at th@ time of deciding the app!ication filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of CMIS Prex;edurie, 1906 is prima fecie finding and not concSusive finding which wltt not @ffect the rights and Siabiisty ofthe parties finaSly. They ar©required to adduce evsdence in support of their daim. 7. Wlth the aforesaid obsen/ation, S do not find any iilegaiity or iniproprtety in the order impugned warranting interference in exercise of supervisery jurisdSction. Consequently, the writ petition ia {iabi©to be dismlssed ar^d it is hereby dlsmissed. However, considering the oid dispute retating to possession, the tria! Couri: is directed to expedite th@ trial anei ctecide the same as eariy as possibte. No order as to costs. ——- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge l^