s ^^.^^ ^ ^-^ ^ 1ll, .i ^^ ^' '^. ^. ,'1'" 'c'-vv 6s> HI©N^OyEITOECHHATTIS©ARHATBILA®f>yR Sln^teBenelisMoii'N^Mr.JustteePrltlnkerDJwalceff Wrlt Petmoit(227) N^140a®ff21»ia PETITIONER PLAiNTIFF RESPONDEN'rS^ DEFEND^NTS Ra|h^ Kumar Khetan, S/o Laxman Prasad Khetan, AQed about 36 ys&rs, R/o 10, North Avenus, Choubey Colony Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, C.G. Versua 1. Moltammad Yunus URirani, S/o Abdui Habbbi Umrani, Aged about 44 years, R/o SVSandr Gat©, Panctaritari, Raipvpi Tehsit & District Raipur, C.G. 2. Shahlct Ahmac^ Raja, S/<^ Late Abdui Hakim, Aged about 36 years, R7o Chhotapara, Raipur. Teh®tl&DJsNGtRaipUF(C.G.) Shri Satyenctra Sahu, ©oun@eifor th^petitionw. S*hri Kshitiz Sharma, counsei TOT Fespondenis. WRITPEri'N@NUN13€RA^ICLE223rO!:;TNE ^CONSTITyTiC^OnNOU^ ORDgS (30.0C2009) Wiftitii&Gonsentoftt^pary®Simatt@rteh©a«^ftnal<y, Chal!e?ige in ftis wnt petttKm i®to tt orct©rctst^t 03.02.2009 passedby 2nd AdditionatDistriGtJudg^Raspur, jn Misc. CMI Appeal No. 13/2008 by whfeh th®appeat preferFecl by th^ ctefor^aints uncteF Orctef 43 Rute 1 wa^ atlowedanAtt»^cas©wa®rei'r(itte€lbac^tott»^trialC@yrtfor the demarcation report of the land in dispute and then if requlFed to conaicter ttie injunctton appticatjon afresh. Contention of Shri Sahu, counsel for th©petltloner is that the demarcation had already been done anci ttierefore there WQS no ocGasiQn for th©trlal Court to direct for the fresh demarcation and tben to reconsider the applieatton under Order 39 Ryles 1 and 2 of the Cod© of CMt Procedure. Therefore th© prder impugned cannot be sustained. On ftre ottier hand, Shri Kshitiz Sharma, counsel for the respondent®supporting the order jmpugned submi^ that there is no jliegaijty in the order impugnect. He further submjtsthatjfthedemarcationreportisbFoughtonrecQFdi't would rgfther meet the interest of justice. AccordJngly demarcation report is directed to be brought OFI record and ttien ttie injunction applicaEtion shall al$@ b©considered* j have hearct counsel for the partie®snd perused frie material available on record. There js no illegQiity in the order jmpugned nor theF®is any ©rrorapparont on face of the record warranting jnterference fc>y ttite Court under Aj-tjcle 227 of the Constjtution of India. The petition being vwthout sul^tance is liabte to be dismissed andjtteh©rebydtemjssed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge Dubey