N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIAS (CHHATTISGARH) 4 WRIT PETITIoN No. 10 \3 /2oo Qy PETITIONER Sushil Chandra Pagaria, aged about 43 years, son of Late Mangichand Pagaria, Resident of Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) L1 1 1‘ \ RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : The District Collector, Bastar (CG) 2. Smt Heera Bai aged about 80 years, w1fe of Phagooram Sahu res1dent ofPoltam Para, Durg Distt. Durg (CG) Bhagirathi Jurti, Tahsildar, Kanker, aged about 48 years, Tah Kanker, Distt. Kanker (Chhattisgarh) 1 ii l Rambharosa Gawde, son of Shri Amar Singh Gond, aged about 4O years, Patwari Kulgaon, Patwari Halka No. 13 Kulgaon Tah and Distt. Kanker (CG) Smt Na11n1 Dev1 Bhagat w1fe of Shn Narendra Kumar Bhagat aged about 42 years Kumari Komal Bhagat daughter of Narendra Bhagat aged, bout 19 years Minor Maushmendra, son of Shri Narendra Bhagat, aged about 17 years 1 LPUR ‘ 8. Minor Aakamend‘ra, son of Narendra Bhagat, aged about 14 years, SLN. 7 86 8 are minors through natural guardian mother‘ - Nalini Devi, wife of Narendra Bhagat SLNO. 5 to 8 arle Jaiswal by caste, resident of‘ Village Maahurbandpara, Kanker, Tah Kanker, Distt. Kanker (CG)‘ i 1‘ \ l WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2%7/01" THE N OF INDIA CONSTITUTIO ’a Writ Petition N0. 1013/2004 Sushi! Chandra Pagaria Versus 3-— RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattigarh and others ' Aggearance: Shri Chandresh S T hn'vastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shn Amiyakant ' None for respondents No.2 to 4. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE m CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . GRAL ORDER (5.1 0.201 0) The‘petitioner has called in questionvthe order passed by the appellate court dismissing his appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC which was preferred to challenge the order passed by the trial court on 31/1 0/2003 dismissing his application for grant oftemporaiy injunction under Order 39 Rule l and 2 ofCPC. (2) According to the plaintift7petitioner, he has purchased property from one Rasik Kuinar by registered sale deed dated~‘22/01/2003 and his name was duly mutated, however the defendant Nod/respondent No.2 Heera Bai had objected to the mutation of the name of Rasik Kumar and her revenue appeal was pending before the Sub (Revenue), Kanker. The said revenue officer vide a.¥.l Divisional Officer l (its order dated 31/05/2003 directed deletion of the name of Rasik RH AT BILASPUR S.B: Honble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER s (2" @D Kumar, hence the instant suit was filed for declaration and permanent 1njunct10n. (3) Both the courts below have found that the plainti£f does not have a prima facie’ case in his favour and that the balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour and he is not likely to suffer any irrerable loss if injunction is not granted. {4) It has been obserVed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court that the suit land earlier belonged to 'Radhamani Bai from Whom the respondentiNo2 purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 28/06/1 972 and thus the claim made by Rasik Lal on the strength of will deed by Radhamani Bai on 1/01/1969 may not confer any title on the said Rasik Lal, because before her death the said Radhamani executed the sale deed in favour of Heera Bai. (5) On perusal of the orders passed by the courts below, this court does not find any manifest error in the impugned order warranting interference by this court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule l and 2 is discretionary and once the order passed by the trial comt has been a&irmed by the appellate court, this court has limited jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India; i“ i (6) In view of the above, the instant writ petition has no substance. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, ‘however it is directed that the trial court shall do Well to dispose of the suit as early as possible l v and preferably within a period of six months. l (7) Earlier this court had passed an interim order staying further proceeding of the suit 1n another writ petltlon No 3454/2005 however that petition has been dismrssed by this court Vide its order dated 3/08/2009. No interim order staying £urther proceeding of the suit is operative on date. (8) The instant writ petition is dismissed. (9) A copy of this order be sent to the trial court immediately. . Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra i Judge l