;1. /"^' 0 IILTHE HIGIICOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) iingle Bsneh WRIT PETITION N0. 2-^8 D /2003 PETITIONERSSS .^^" •^^ r.'^'"'' ^v RESPONDENTS -n^n ^ i^r- .^i :"<w^ ^•^^^^' // %.....° v °^.^1 * 1. MANBODHI AGED ABOUT YEARS SON OF SHRI POKIRAM SINHA 2. PHAGUA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, SON OF SHRI POKIRAM SINHA 3. TRILOCHAN, AGED ABOUT YEARS, SON OF SHRI POKIRAM SINHA. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF PEEPARCHHEDI, TAH AND DISTT. DHAMTARI (C.G.) VERSUS LALIT KUMAR, SON OF SHRI GAJRATAN SINHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PEEPARCHHEDI, TAH. DHAMTARI, DISTRICT- DHAMTARI (C.G.). BHOOKHAN SON OF SHRI GAJRATAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAG&GHARO-TA, DI^TT. DHAMTARI (C.G.). DINESH KUMAR, SQN OF GAJRATAN, RESIDENT OF GANJPARA, DISTT. DURG (CHHATTISGARH). GAYATRI BAI, D/0. SHRI GAJRATAN SINHA, JANKI BAI DAUGHTER OF GAJRATAN SINHA '(YC' ^" 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. ^.-..A^JWRIT w^ PETITION UNDER SHIVRANY WIFE OF LAL SINGH SINHA SARASWATI BAI WIFE OF SHRI BHUBHANLAL SINHA PUSHPABAI WIFE OF HEMLAL SINHA NEERABAI WIFE OF AASHARAM SINHA RAMBAI, WIDOW OF LATE GAJRATAN SINHA ISHWARI BAI WIFE OF SHIVKUMAR SINHA KIRAN BAI DAUGHTER OF GAJRATAN SINHA SL.NO. 3 TO 12 THROUGH LALIT SINHA RESIDENT OF PEEPARCHHEDI, DISTT. DHAMTARI (C.G.) DAMODAR SINHA SON OF SHRI ARJUN SINHA, DEVIPRASAD SON OF SHRI ARJUN SINHA DANESHWAR PRASAD SON OF SHRI ARJUN SINHA. SLNO. 13 TO 15 R/0. VILL PIPARCHHEDI, TAH AND DISTT. DHAMTARI (CG) ^— ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA % W?T3?Ettl'%tiJ^ ^G.-. "v-r-\ C'&Pf 'S^ ^raM^, ^TfrOTFS, fN^TRP37 ^..ML^:.5.!.S:^ ^rii^T (1^t^^) i^fw^fi^ ^^ 20/2/2004 Shri C.R. Sahu,counseljfor the petitioners Heard. Brief facts of the case ajre that the plaintiffs respondents agamst Damodaij, Devi Prasad, DIianeswar and the (j>f declaration, title and injunction ^er Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. m filed the siiit against Dainodaij present petitioners for grant alongwith an application ync^ The trial Court passed the preferred an appeal. The ordler that the order passed by th< para-8 it has been held tha1 plaintiff is in possession ove Appellate Court vide order '^?^i^4vl ^R^ ^ fe^ I^^R ^^RR^I^ on 28.10.2002. The petitioners l(j>wer AppeUate Court perusedthe record and considered the n^atter in gi'eat details and found trial Court is well merited. In prima facie it appears that the the land in dispute. The lower dated 07.08.2003 rejected the j appeal. Having considered the f4cts and circiimstances ofthe 6;ase and material on record and iii view ofthe settled law laid down *¥W^iT'i»*n«^ ^^ ';WVM^, W^tW^, 'N^TRTCI7 ,..?:f..^.., ( m '^ by the Apex Court in the case <j)f Sun^a Dev Rai vs. Ramchandar Rai and others reported in (2C|03) 6 SCC 675, ui the opinion of ^uch warranting interference is ?. However, it is directed that ftie case within a period of6 raonths this Coiu-t, no uifinnity as pointed out in the present cas^. trial Court shall dispose ofthej from the date of production ^f this order before it, subject to cooperatioriof the parties and|their counsel. With the aforesaid ob^ervations, this petition stands disposed of. ^iS^fwft^ TIFI^f ^ fe8^1> '^^t^.-I^T Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge GKPRJ—RS/3®:- ;/7200( —50,000. •^'