,.!'5a" .^-•^ ^.; fr/?":^ i'!:K!'s"'"9 fi •:....•/ •» Appellant Plaintiff Respondents Defendants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No.294of2004 Rajkumar Nagar aged about 36 years, son of Shri Bajranglal Nagar, r/o. Shyamn^jar, Raipur, Tehsil and DistrictRaipur(C.G.) Versus 1. Ramkishan, aged about 61 years, son of Late Shri Budhram Kalash 2. Yogesh Kumar Kalash aged about 31 yeare 3. Sunil Kumar aged about 27 yeare Respondent No.2 and 3 sons of Ramkishan Kaiash, r/o. !n front of Garud Bhavran, Ranjabi ^ Colony, Katoratalab, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur. (APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J.) Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Mr.Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for fte respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23 June, 2009) The appellanthas filed this appeal agamst the order dated 12.1.2004 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Chnl Suit No.78-AV2TO3 whereby the learned Third Addittonal District Judge has dismissed the application for grant of injuncUon filed by the appellant under 39 Rute 1 and 2 of th®Code of Civil Proc^dure for restraining the respondents from alienating ttie property. ; 2. The order ^is/challenged on the ground that th®respondents are In possassion of the suit property and fte^may alienate the property and creat®third partyinterest. < " 3. I have heard teamed counsel for the partles and perused the order impugned. <l!*':a»! '%,. 1.' . .<?'!'%». :|5^.;'JE2i;| —iL- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits ttat EKimlttedly the present respondents are in possession of the suit property but the present appeltant is having interest over the property and if the suit preperty fo alienatsd to other persons, then thlrd party interest may be created. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submite that accordlng to para-1 of fte appeal, the respondents have purohased the suit property and they are in possession'of the suit property land and have constructed shop over the suit property and the appellant has not made any allegations Uiat the respondente are altenating the suit property. 6. It is clear from the order impugned and memo of app^l that the present appellant is not in possession of the suit property and the respondents have purohased the suit properiy from other personsand they are In possession of the suit property and even they have constructed shop over the su property. 7. Taking into consideratton ttie factum of possession and on basis of some symbol of the ownerehip in fevour of respondents, 1 do not find any ground for interference in the order impugned.Consequently, the appeal te dismissed atttie stage of admission. M.C.P.Nos.382/2004, 383/2004, 3760/2004 stand disposed of. I.A.Nos.834/2004, 37S9/2CXM and , Sd/- f T. P. Sharma Judge