6 ‘ExV/ IN THE HGN'BLE HIGH 9OURT OE GIHNTTISGARH AT BIL£$PUR 233! /2904 WcP o NO- 3 Baisakhu son of Bhaddu. aged about 25 years, by caste Harijan, R/o. village Haraee. Tah. Bharawar. matt. Kama (am). gammy. yummm NO R \ PEI‘ITIONER gspomms : 1. Phudda son of Kunjal, agea about. 50 yaars. by caste u- Harijan. R/o. village-Amara- dandi. P’s. Janakpur. Tah. aharatpur. Distt. Korea w.s.) ‘ WWW [l 2w Bhadma san ef Ama. aged about 1 i ' 52 years. by caste-Harijan R/owill. Haraae. TatuBhatatpur,‘ Distemorea . EEPEKD‘WT M’” § 3. Etate of Chhattiagarh, Thmugh- Collector Karea. Pest Eaikunthpur (c.G.). DEEmmm‘ No3 4. Vishambhar son of Bhaddu. aged about 26 years. 5; site Sharan son of Bhaddu, aged about 22 years. Both by caste Harijan.‘ R/o. Haraee. Tab. Bharamur. Distt. as: Korea (c.e.). Pmmmww-WJ '_ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIgE 2’27 OF TIfIE CONSTITUTIGN OP INDIA. Details c tha petition :— f 1) PARTICUIQARS OE” TEE PMITIONE :- As given abova in the aause title; w2- www.mm m Wm LIPN‘LWNI 00 swam:m (Wa) Mmm WWW WW wm WWW aiwm 0310119005 Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Shrivastava, ‘3.A. for the State/respondents. Heard on admission The case of the petitioner is that he filed a Civii Suit for deciaration of status recovery of posseesic n of the suit property before the triai Court . and in that proceedings he also preferred an application for appointment of third person as receiver u r order 4O rule 1 of the CPC alleging that the defendant No.1 has illegall taken the possession of the property since is name mutated in the Revenue records 1999 and thereafter has got and under such pircumstanc s a third person as receiver should be appointed. This application we opposed by the defendant on the ground that he was in possession oft e suit property since last 30-35 years and the plaintiff was only in posse sron of the suit property and the suit has been fled on the baSIs of illega Will and sale deed Learned trial Court allo ed the application and appointed receiver of the ,s'uit property. A simiiar prayer against which the ~ defendantsirespondent No.1 eferred Misceltaneous Civii Appeal No. 01/04 before the learned ADJ Manindragarh and who by the impugned order has allowed the appeal d set aside the order of appointment of receiver. Learned counset for t e petitioner submits that the petitioner prefers that the respondent N .1 may alienate the property which may result in irreparable injury to he petitioner and therefore learned ADJ rought to have dismissed te appeal and confirmed the order of a e ointment of receiver b th GRPRI FS/ZB —;:»v/200<.—50,000. n e r n @ GRPRJ—FS/7<9 —;/200<.—50,000. wIV/Yowzay OW Wm .................................... .............mzoo am W (WW) I have heard Iearned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent is not in possession of the suit property and that the appeiiants are in the possession of the suit property since 1999 there is no allegation for appointment of the receiver or any third person and that if the defendant is allowed to continue with the possession of the suit property some irreparabie Ioss is iikeiy to ensue the petitioner or the nature of property may be ch anged by the respondents. and under these circumstances, i do not find any reason to interfere and set aside the impugned order and to interfere invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution 3f India and under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. in view of this order, LA No. 6312/2004 stands disposed of. ##K/ Sd/— ‘ ‘ ‘ . DmENDRA MISHRA I Judge