^ 4-." .).- <~. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. ADpellant Plaintiff Respondents Defendants M.A. No. 93 of 2008 Firtu Ram, son of Shri Janku Ram Kurmj, aged 50 years, resident of Village Kaitha, Tehsil Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) Versus 1. Firat Ram, Son of Shankar Lal, aged 46 years, resident of village Kaitha, Tehsil Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (CG) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (R) Offhe CPC Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22.09.2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by order dated 14.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa in civil suit No.7-A/2008, whereby an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the appellant/plaintiffwas dismissed. (3) Brief facts are that the appellant/plaintiff instituted suit for specific performance of contract dated 29.02.2008, whereby the respondent No;17dSfendant had agreed to sell 16 decimal land to him and had received an advance of Rs.50,000/-. In the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the appellant/plaintiff had averred that to frustrate the agreement, the respondent No.1 was doing construction work over the suit land. The respondent No.l/defendant filed reply and stated that he was ready and willing to execute a sale deed in favour bf the appellant/plaintiff for 16 decimalof land under the agreement. It was averred that the appellant/plaintiff had filed suit with intent to 'grab 2.5 decimal land adjacent to the land in area 16 decimal. The learned Additional District Judge has, after considering the averments and the ffr" E:!;s" Priya documents, dismissed the application under Order 39 Rulel &2 CPC on the ground that no prima facie case exists for grant of injuction against the respondent No.l/defendant. In para-6 of the order, it was also mentioned by the learned Additional District Judge that the respondent No.l/defendant was free to use the land, which was in excess of 16 decimalland agreed to be sold, in any manner andsuch an act by the respondent No.l/defendant would not cause any irreparable injury to the appellant/plaintiff. (4) No illegality is seen in the impugned order. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. 1 Dilip Raosalieb Deshmukh Judge <''"'/TM