^te^gs^^^a.,- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No.23/2007 Single BencS's: Hon'bSe Shri Dllip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. A(3Rei|ant PjaLntJff Respondents Defendants Goverdhan Gupta S/o Tejram Gupta, Aged about 32 years, Qccupation-Agriculture, R/o viISage-Rabo, Tahsii-Gharghora, ' District Raigarh (CG) Versys 1. IViehattar Das S/o Niranjan Das, Castae-Panika, R/o village Aamapaii, Tahsii-Gharghora, District Raigarh (CG) 2. Sandip Sharma S/o K.K. Sharma, Aged about 20 years, R/o Gaurishankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (CG) 3. Rakesh Sanwai S/o M.L. Sanwal, Aged about 23 years, R/o Gaurishankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (CG) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Coliector, Raigarh District Raigarh (CG) iVSisc. Appeai under Section 104 riw Order 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Present:- Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the appeiiant. Shri Akhil Agrawa!, PL for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 13th June, 2007) Heard on admission. 2. The appeilant is aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2007 passed in civli suit N0.16-A/2006 by the Additional District Judge, whereby the r ^ lllll 11111 III "<r appiication under Order-39 Ruie-1&2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C filed by the appeliant/piaintiff was dismissed. 3. Brief facts are that it was pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that he, aiong with Mehattar Das, respondent/defendant No.1 had purchased the suit iand jointly by sharing the consideration. However, the saie deed was executed soiely in favour of Mehattar Das, defendant No.1. it was further pieaded that on 21.09.2005, an agreement was executed between the defendant No.1 and the appeilant/plaintiff for saie of 18 decimals of land out ofthe land so purchased. An application under Order-39 Ru!e-1&2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. was filed by the appeilant/plaintiff for grant of temporary injunctlon. 4. The iearned Additional District Judge has, by a weii-reasoned order, dismissed the appiication under Order-39 Rule-1&2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C on the ground that no prima-fac'fe case existed in favour of the plaintiff since the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit iand on the date of suit and no cogent reason was given" as to why despite sharing of the consideration the name of the appeliant/piaintiff was not included in the sale deed as a purchaser. Even the document 'ikramama' dated 21.9.2005 did notshow that possession of the land was delivered to the appellant/plaintiff. 5. In this view of the matter, the rejection of application under Order-39 Ruie-1&2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C is well merited. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. 6. In view of the above, I.A. No. 1, for ad-interim reiief aiso stands dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya