IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (227) N0. SS'-S-^ OF 2010 (S.B.) PETITIONER : APPELLANT/ DEFENDANTNO.l Mohan Das, aged about 48 years S/o Patrakhan Satnam.i, R/o Village Kanchanpur, Tahsil Mungeli, District BUaspur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPQNDENTS : PLAINTIFFS/ RESPONDENT N0. 1 &2 1. A^^-< ^•iMfN^" .^.l:. <-\~^'\0\..: -AO-'^itV >K..*-' y^ .0.- ' :^v' ^' DEFENDANT N0.2/ RESPONDENT N0.3 DEFENDANT N0.3/ 4. RESPONDENT N0.4 Shekhar, aged about 10 years S/o Devsingh Satnami; Shyameharan, aged about 8 years S/o Devsingh Satnami; Both are m.inors, through their natural guardian Father Devsingh Satnami S/o Bhuwan Singh, aged about 38 years, Caste Satnami, R/o Village Chirounjpur, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Chander Bai, aged about 68 years W/o Bhuwan Satnami, R/o Village Chirounjpur, presently residing at Village Kabratola, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.). ,:^w^-- , -•^<:*L-/^^\ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION tin &tt. .K^^tK * ; l"l'X. '-^fl '"!-::^<«-T»^ OFINDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER. 2. As given in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS. As given in the cause title. 3. -~ PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE'PETITION IS MADE (SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF). <^>s^ .!.!i;1|,:)- • ••;: :\ iiir ^.^.—A--;-^ (rca^'l: ^ ssa^ B[s ^a ?s. 'il y*.^? ^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 8.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (227) No. 5S58/2010 : Mohan Das Versiu : Shekhar and others Appearance; Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER , (27.09.2010) The petitioner is the defendant in the civil suit and is suffering a decree for declaration and permanent injunction. His first appeal is pending in the court of2 Additional District Judge, Mungeli (FTC). In the said first appeal he moved an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC for stay of the execution on the pleading that the decree holder has moved application for mutation of his name before the revenue court and if he succeeds in getting his name mutated, fhe appellant shall suffer irreparable loss. (2) The appellate court has rejected the application by observing that it is not clear from the application that the mutation is being carried out by tfae executing court. hi ii'i!iaiii^ii:ii^<igi^^^ (3) After hearing leamed counsel and after perusal of the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed ofwith a direction that the mutation of the name of the decree holder on the suit land shall remain subject to the decision by the appellate court in the first appeal filed by the petitioner. (4) Petition stands disposed of. Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge J^\ i'MBIi