HIGH COURT OF CHHATTEGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (227} No. $1 6$ of 2WE Petitioylg Ashok Kumar Gupta, $10. Late Shri Ptaintiff MangE Prasad Gupta, Aged about 48 . years, accupaticn — Business, Rm. Mahalpara Road, Ba§kunthpur. Dist. Knr'ea (CG). Versus Respondegg 1) Vinod Gupta, Slo. Late Shti Shiv Ratan Defendants Gupta, aged abaut 58 years, occupation ‘ Business. . ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 6‘“ day of November, 2308) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 29-8~2008 (Annexure PM) passed by the District Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) in Misc. Civii Appeal No. 4/2008 arising out of the order dated 94-20% (Annexure Pl5) passed by‘the ll Civit Judge, Class-1, Baikunthpur, Dist. Korea in Civil \ Suit No. 12-N2006, whereby the appiioation ’ under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 2) Smt. Krishna Gupta, Wdio Late Shri Prabhat Gupta, aged about 48 yaars, 3) Smf. Jyoti Gupta, D/o. Late Shri Prabhat Gupta, aged about 28 years. 4) Deepak Guph, $lo. Late Shri Prabhat Gupta, aged about 25 years. 5) ,Suraj @ Bani? Gupta, 3'0. Late Shri Prabhat Gupta, aged abcut 2O yams. 6} Neha Gupta, D/o. Late Shri Prabhat Gupta, aged about 17 years, Minor through Mother Smt. Krishna Gupta, Wdle. Late Shri Prabhat Gupta. ' AH Rio. Ward No.08, Mahatpara Road, Baikunthpur, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Kerea (CG). ' (Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of india) 3B: Hon’bie Mn. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. DN. Praiapati, counsel for the petitioner. ‘l’ read with Section 151 of the Code of Civii Procedure, 1908 (for short; “CPC’? flied by the petitioner, was dismissed. 2) The brief facts, in nutsheli, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitionerlpiaintiff fiied a suit being Civii $uit No. 12-N2006 before the 2nd Civii Juge, Ciass -1, Baikunthpur aiong with an appiication under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. The said application was allowed by erder dated 26-4-2006 (Annexure P/3), directing the parties to maintain status qua. Against the said order, the respondents herein preferred an appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.8/2006 before the District Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur), who by order dated 13-1 1-2006 (Annexure P14) rejected the appeal and maintained the order dated 26-4-2006 for a period of six months. However, liberty was given to the trial Court to extend the period of interim relief as and when occasion arises. 3) According to the petitioner, the triai Court refused to extend the period of interim relief which Was granted earlier, therefore, the petitioner again moved an application under Order 39 Rule1 and 2 read with Section t 151 of the CPC for grant of temporary injunction, which was dismissed by order dated 9-4-2008 {Annexure P/5). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Misc. Civil Appeal before the, District Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) which was also dismissed by order dated 29-8-2008 (Annexure PH). Thus, this petition. 4) Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the triai Court erred in dismissing the applicationnotwithstanding the fact that earlier appiication fiied under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was aliowed. Learned counsel further submits that prima facie, the petitioner has good case and the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the baitioner. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 29-8-2008 passed by the I 6) N triai Court is bad in law, perverse and against the matwai on recard, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. From the record it appears that while passing the ordegthe learned District Judge has specifically observed that the petitioner has not made any eEorts for early disposal of his case. So far as construction work is concerned, the petitioner has not produced any photographs before the court beiow and has also not produced the demarcation report. As per para 13 of the appeal, the construction work has already been compteted, therefore, the question of granting interim relief does not arise. 6) This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India, shoutd refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictionai error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case.‘ 7) Thus, the order dated 29-8-2008 (Annexure PH) passed by the learned District Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) is unexceptionable, just & proper and does not warrant any interference. 8) Accordingly, the petition‘is dismissed in iimr'ne. Consequentiy, i.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge Raju