•f.S^s'WiSS-cy^e'^rf- I^?^:-;3S^5ge^-B?¥;"Bt'"-StS;3S?st!^P^iB'''' .-•*' •-.sQ-^i!^ Q^^ H1GH COUICT OF CHHATTISGJWH AT BILASPUR Mfrit Petition (Art.2271 No.3985 oT 2011 Petitioner Defendant No.1 Respondents 2. Chief Executive Officer, Ftelpur Development Authority, Raipur (C.G.). Versus Smt.Prachi Venna, wife of Sandeep Verma, resident of C-41, Surya Vihar, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Plainfiff State of Chhatti^arh, Throu^i Collector, Raipur (C.G.). 0/Vrit Petition under Artfefe 227 ofthe Condttutton of Indla) Mr.PankajAgrawal, counselfbrthepetitioneF. , Mr.Anoop Mazumdar, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr.Sumtt Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2/State. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER(ORAL) (16-8-2011) By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Con^itutton of india the petitioner has challenged the legatity & propriety of the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by the First Additional District Juc^e, Raipur in Mte.Civil Appeal No.10/2010, affirming the order granttng injunctton dated 30.6.2010 (assed by the Fourth Civil Judge Glass-lt, Raipur in Ch/HSuitNo.105A/10. At the outset, teamed counsel for resporajent No.1 submits that order dated 30.6.2)10 was for limited period of one year as pw para 13 of the order Impugned and respondent No.1 has not applied for ©densionof such order and now affirmed order dated 30.6.^)10 is not in existance after ^).6.2011, therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous. Considering the submisslon made by leamed counsel for re^iondent No.1 in whose favour injunctton was granted and today oider of injunction is not in existence In favour of respondent No.1 , the wit petition is dismissKl as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. ^ Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge