mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR v WRITPETITIONNo. 1970 of 2005 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF Harish Sahu, aged about 30 years, S/o Sadaram Sahu, r/o Kauhabahra, (Sadakpara) Tah. Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Johan, aged about 42 years, son ofRamPrasad Lohar. 2. Dayabadi^ aged about 38 years, wife ofJohan. 3. Kunwar Bai, aged about 37 years, wife of Johan. All are residents of village Kauhabahra (Sadakpara), Tah. Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. ( Shri K.R.Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. Present: ORAL ORDER \tIT 3. (Passed on 30m day of January, 2009) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2004, whereby miscellaneous appeal filed against the order of rejection passed in an application filed under Order 29 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the Civil Judge^ Class II, on 14.01.2003, was dismissed. The petitioner has filed a civil suit being No. 134-A/2002 in the Court of IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Dhamtari, seeking permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner on the house and land in question. The case ofthe petitioner was that he was residing in a house which was constructed by him on the suit land described in the map filed as A, B, C and D alongwith the plaint. The house is also being used as a dispensary. The Forest Department had lodged a case against the petitioner for encroachment^ and on 16.05.2001, a fme of Rs. 1000/- was imposed upon him. The respondents are neighbour of the petitioner and they are trying to iriterfere with the possession ofthe petitioner. During the pendency ofthe suit, the petitioner filed an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 ofthe CPC before the Trial ..^^ k»N(»NNN<l Court, which was rejected on 14.01.2003. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2004 which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 04.03.2005 (Amexure P/l). 4. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. The petitioner has not filed the order dated 14.01.2003 passed by the Civil Judge, rejecting his application for grant of interim injunction. In miscellaneous appeal, the leamed Judge has considered all the aspects. It was found that the petitioner has constmcted a house inside the forest area without any permission and as such., it was held as encroachment and he was fined also accordingly. In view ofthe fact that the petitioner has been held as an encroacher, no fault can be found with the refusal for grant oftemporary injunction. Even otherwise, the impugned order in appeal was passed on 4 March, 2005. No interim reliefwas granted by this Court and as such, at this stage, no useful purpose would be served by granting temporary injunction. 6. It is well-nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia should refrain itselffrom interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.03.2005. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits ofthe case, the petition is dismissed in limine. No order asto costs. 8. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1558/2005, also stands dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge Amit