Q53 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.5242 of 2009 PETITIONERI: Omprakash Sahu, aged about 26 years, (Plaintiff) S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Sahu, R/o Village Khorpa, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through Power of Attorney Rajendra Prasad Sahu, aged about 56 years, S/o late Manohar Sahu, R/o Village Khorpa, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) 1. Jayantri Bai, widow of Horilal Patel, R/o Village Khorpa, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} l Present: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj‘Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for respondent No.1. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (22-72201 1) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitition of india, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 6-7-2009 passed by the 14"1 Additional District Judge, FTC, Raipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No.8/2008 affirming'the order of dismissal ofthe application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151"of the CPC on behalf of the petitioner herein passed by the 12‘“ Civil Judge Class—II, Raipur in Civil Suit No.213A/2008, dated 27- 11-2008. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned and other documents. . Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Court below has not considered the revenue documents and thereby committed illegality. 2 @\ 4. On the other hand, Iearned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the petition and submits that both the parties have closed their evidence and injunction as claimed by the petitioner has been refused by the trial Court on 27-11-2008 and, therefore, after lapse of time it would only be a futile exercise. 5. Considering both the orders impuned, the fact that both the parties have closed their evidence, dismissal of the application for temporary injunction and the appeal by the Courts below, i do not find any ground for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the Court below is directed to decide the suit as early as possible. Soma T.P Sharma Judge