IN TIEE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR SEeOND APPEAL N0. -S'4\ ttM4 ^-APPEMANT : ^"^^ ^K- •y.s^ ^2^ p/y ^o <^/" •VERSUS- //Satish Ghandra Stirivastava, S/o Late Shri,Ra]jinkaatShrivastat Agsd at>out 4^ yeara, Ctecupation, Advocate, Resident o£ "Raaani Chaya" Civil Ijne Balddabazar, Distt. Kaiplir:(C.G.) DepartmsntofForest^ffin^' Tiirough, divisiorial lorest '. GeuersU Forest circle . RajaTalab.Raipur. Stats j)f Cbliattisgarfr tlu-ou^i CoUecter.B.aipar (C.e.). ^ yaInaffii>»ufai»i»tal!Ks.3OT/-{Aslncoiu'tbetoir) ]??CAu^]ft^8ta^; j ; ji&.tdiK^^ -..••;'» - » CbiXTteea AffixEfrlN s.ft. :-.&^ioo/. ^^" ©@:NBApaEMLCNa BSB^TION1WOOFTHECIVII, RESPONDENTS MEFENDANTS: :1, 4^ \y |i;!ai .i]:jLul XI-HC-78 an^rqirf^iR; EraTOT^Tsbtlicti *irq<fT s»»*irai 3S? •:qFn?ra, ®T(1<i'i6,(siyitiy . s.A. i^o. 5-&-i./'•W^ 200^ 3ll^i'l'4a<h ('^3g^?) s^aTWHferan^T °tii<iFi-i<(1'< *iii<iT^Ts'<J) <Ri^;i< ^isrf^irsn^T 19^32-200? Shri Prakash Tiwari, ooun^ Shri G.D.Vaswani, Govt. A|Jvocate for the State/respondents. Heard. Theappellant is aggrieved 08-2004 in Civil Appeal N0.114/2003 passed by the llnd Additionsi District Judge,; Baioda Bazar,(C.^ dated 25-06-2003 in Civil Suit Nd Having heard rival cootentj reliance placed by learned c'6yFfe| the Wi!d Life (Protection) Act, 19^ not vrell founded and cannot be d 1972 is an acf for the protection <j ^l for the appellant. by the judgment and ctecree dated 21- p.) whereby the judgment and decree I.140-A/2002 passed by the Civil Judge Class-1, Baloda Bazar (C.G.) r^fusing to grant prohibitop/ injunction against the defendants was aTBrm^d. ons, 1 am of the considered opinion that il forthe appellant dn the previsions of: ;2 ancjthe CattieTrespass Aet, 1871 is ccepted. The Wild Ljfe (Prote.ction) Act,; >f wild animals, birds and plailits and for matters connected therewith or ajicillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and er|vironmenta! security of the oountry ancj <e appellant-plaintiff. Similarly,; theCattle ;ation to the facts of the case sincel a )he definition of catt!e in Section-3 ^ of does not enure to the benefit of tl1 Trespass Act, 1871 has no appl v/iid monkey does not fall within I the Act. Thus, the refusal to ^ant prohib'itory injunotion against the defendants is in aocordanoe with in the result, thi.s appeal i^ to cost. aw In this view of the matt^r, no substantial question^of iav^ is invo!ved inthis appeal. dismissed. There shall be no orderlas l? Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge