^^' iSB.raa^plliT ^^ << .tA ^^ ^ ...•••y ^•' ^»WSWSM ailffHTTCT ^. ^' ^'.,.sy ^sasa sawts.^ s©a©fs&n ^K<»1S&atla age« a.1teiit'46 ieaeStlfiT|(a©a^ia^eoAat Bstea? @f 4 f©3asey@©3.0eE ,' Stxl ^a^e^l Btttoey S/B tato® ®»3dPrayag Prsasa^ Bki^ey a^d.a^safc ^ ,xearS Ms Gba^ara Mlasgttr»Taihail a»€6ist3£i<3fc Mtaspit (G»Q»)^ . Mliesfa IQsll.ar., teia . @f ^ljaKai? PCa^ai S&^ey age^ a^%it 52 yeaFs®Gleifc SAstrdet Cboperatlwe »ttEai-Vd^as Btaia^ R/© 'S&lsh.as^ Hagae. .Effa.as^r 1| At pregeati Tafesl3. aiad atstriGfc B^aspBr (c»G.)f <a&|?l^^ StoKla.S^b '"" "" °' Keeawatil SlSiKla aged •a^sat 4S sear^ 4N miya Deil Ttlpatfay B!^ s^n K^StsleiKla ageft ^toat ®5 yearai^ Sttte* Maa^BtM Tlwad W^ SbJBl QisS^aff TliSaCi agei s^lit m ysafi, Sw^ Rafe&a Paaadey B/© Shd K»8^tt%-^gaged aieat 49 s'sar^! r^ 1 < 2/» .J^l Sa^l 1te©Ba -TiWa2^i- ^ , ^/©Sferl <Tal Ti«atd aged aleiat 38 ^ears* Ml resl^eatS ®£B2a?ala" Waga^ Bs^iad ^iig Sta®€ .BtBa^&r Ta3&sll aad Blsfc® maiaspar.{ iQTSeaSiNBC%?Sfc CSF'VXLl • APPSltt* " W BBR ,Om3®R!al:^t"KBL]B"tl er ta^'^EB OP •crTEE," pao-GBBiratjflSK i^t ||NN"1«""^; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant Respondents M.A. No.53/2010 Versus Shyam Shukla Dinesh Kumar & Ors Present: Shri R.K. Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Oral Order (06.07.2010) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the trial Court on 20.04.2010 rejecting the appellanVdefendant No.2's application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiff from alienating the suit property during pendency of the suit. 2. The plaintiffs have preferred the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 6.12.1979. The suit is thus pending for the last about 31 years. 3. In this application, under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, the appellant has stated that the plaintiff is likely to alienate the suit property during pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs, in their reply to the said application have stated that they are not going to alienate the property and further that in fact it is the defendant No.2, who is creating obstacle for the plaintiff in their peaceful enjoyment of the property. 4. Learned trial Court has recorded a finding that the appellant has failed to prove the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in support of his claim for grant of temporary injunction. -2- .^A 5. On perusal of the order, this Court is satisfied that the finding recorded by the trial Court is not perverse. The appeal having no substance, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 6. Since the suit is pending from December, 1979, jt is directed that the trial Court shall do well to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months and submit a report to this Court. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Priya