IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPAL N0. ?? (^ /2009Slng|© APPELLANT ZfPLAINTIFF) £>", ^9) .Q^^S. ,......,-r"':fi^.(!^;' ^$^- RESPONDENTS fDEFENDANTS) Anwar, S/o Shri H.R. Sayyad, aged about 40 years, R/o - Khamtarai, Tah. &Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. ^- Kunwar Bai, D/o Suklal, aged about 48 years, R/o Khamtarai, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.), Presents Address - Tumgaon, P.S. Tumgaon, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Kumari Bai, D/o Suklal, aged about 44 years, R/o Khamtarai, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.), Presents Address - Amethi, P.S. & Tah. Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Sumitrin, Bai, D/o Suklal, aged about 42 years, R/o Khamtarai, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.), Budhwantin Bai, D/o Suklal, aged about 39 years, R/o Khamtarai, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.), Presents Address - Dhaurabhatha, P.S. Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) --^, 6. /• 05 Abhirakhan, S/o Suklal, aged about 52 years, R/o Khamtarai, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.), Presents Address - Village Amethi, P.S. & Tah. Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Ramesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Shyamlal Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o Narmada Para, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE IfR) OFC.P.C. L -~1 APPELLANT NON-APPUCANT HIGH COXIRT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Misc. AooeaS No. 86/2009 Siraj Anwar Versus Kunwar Bai and othesrs SB: HONBLE SHRI N.K. AGRAWAL, J PRESBNT:- Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate for fhe appeUant. ORAL ORDBR (17-11-2009) 1. Heard on admission< 2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 27-7-2009 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Raipur in CivU Suit No. 1- A/2009 whereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the appellant/plainttff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. has been dismissed. 3. Facts briefly stated are as under:- 4. As per fhe plaintifi'fs case, the applicant entered into agreement to seU with regard to suit property with one Smt. Khedia Bai, daughter of Firanta Satnami aged about 80 years with consent of defendants No. 1 to 5 vide agreement dated 5-5-2001 and obtained its possession. The plaintiff came to know fhat on 24-1-2007, the suit property beazing Khasra No. 267 area 0.237 hectare which was earUer subject matter of ceiling case, has been sold by fhe defendant No. 1 to 5 tn favour of one Ramesh Sahu/ defendant No. 6. Therefore, the plaintiff filed instant suit seeking reMef for specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over fhe suit land; also filed an application under Order 39 Rulg 1 and 2 offhe C.P.C. for grant oftemporary mjunction. 5. In rcply, the respondents denied the allegations contained in the plaint as well as in ftie application and submitted that Smt. Khedia Bai was not fhe owner of the suit property. There was no consent or permission of the defendants to ^ f^ sald Khedia Bai for entering into said agreement to~Ts€llwifh the plaintiff. The possession of flie suit property was with them and not wifh fhe defendant No. 6 who holds the suit property on the strength of his own titie and pray for dismissal of the suit as well as the application. The trial Court upon appreciation of fhe material placed by bofh the parties dismissed fhe tnjunction application holding ttiat there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff nor balance of convenience is in his favour nor the plaintiff appears to sustain irreparable loss in case injunction is not granted. 6. Shd Soni, leamed counsel for tfae appellant, would submit that fhe order passed by the trial Court is peryesrse and deserves to be set aside. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the appeltant. 8. Admittedly, said agreement was not entered into between fhe plalntiff and fhe defendants. Whefher or not, there was any pennission or consent of the defendants No. 1 to 5 ia execution offhe said agreement dated 5-5-2001 b^tween ttie plainttff and Khedia Bai is a matter of evidence and it is to be decided by the trial Court during trial on its own merits. Nothing has been shown by fhe plaintiff to show his possession over the suit propesrty. Admittedly, the suit property has already been sold by the defendants No.l to 5 to defendant No. 6, fherefore, at tius stage, leamed tiial Court has rightly dismissed the application j&led by the plairittff for grant of temporaiy injunction as no prima facie case is made out for temporary injunction. No ofher point has been raised or argyed. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the submission made by leamed counsel for fhe applicant so as to interfere tn fhe order passed by the trial Court. 10. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. 11. However, it is directed fhat the trial Court shall decide the suit expeditiously. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge