7\ / \QJO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR “LP. [‘227i W0. 2450 of 2011 Rame$h Agrawal, aged about 62 ycars, S/o late Awadhcshnandan Agrawal, Santo§h Agrawal, aged about) 40 yearS’i Ashok‘l Agrawal, aged about 38 YéarS,E Jitendjra Agrawal, aged about 32 yearsi Uma Kiran Agrawal, waged. about 34 year, Appellants N0. 2 to 5 axe Sons 81. 19/ 257, near Shanna Floor Mill, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). Udaynarayan Agrawal, aged bout 55 years, S/o late Shri Kishan Lal Agrawal, R/o 27 Recleation Road, Choube Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Phinw State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur, Collectorate Premiscs, Raipur (C, G.). Defendant No. 6 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Present:- Mr. HB‘ Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Msl Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No 1 Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, RL. for the State/respondent No. 2 ' ORDER (passed on 18/11/2011) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 5/ 2/ 2011 passed by 14th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.). in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1012010 reversing the order dated 22/ 10/ 20 10 passed by 4th Civil Judge Class-2, Raipur in civil suit No. 170A! 20 19 whereby application for injunction filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has been dismissed but While r /- (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Shatma, J.) : Daughter of Ramesh Agrawal, All Rfo house No. PETITIONERs 1) Defendants 2) 3) 4) , 5} versus RESPONDENTS 1) - \Qy allowing appeal 14th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) has gfanted temporaly mjunction against tha petitioners relating to thini party alienation and status-qua Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Shyam§ Agiawal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 & Mr. Vinod Klimar Tekam, RL. for the State/respondent No. 2 are heard. As per claim of the petitioners after separation they are in peaceful possession of the property and'as per claim of respondent No. 1, respondent No. 1 is in adverse possession upon agricultural land since 1975. Considering the rival claim over the property by both the parties, it would be just to save the property from alienation to third party till decision of the suit. Consequently, order impugned is partly modified to the extent that no party shall create third party interest till final decision of the suit. No order as to costs. 1 -Sd/- r . T.P. Sharma/V ‘1 judge " Vi'