HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH. BILASPUR Misc. Apoeal No. 10 of 2007 APPELLANT PLAINTIFF RESR3NDENTS DEFENDANTS Union of India, Though: Divisional Railway Manager, P.K. Samant Rai, South Eastem Central Railway, Raipur Division, Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Kuber Rathi, Gudiyari Road, Near Railway Station, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Gyan Prakash Sahu, President, Licensed, Kuli Sangh, Railway Station, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3. Sitaram Baba (Tempie Pujari), Hanuman Mandir. Raihvay Statron Premises, Raipur, District Rajpur (CG) Shri Abhishek Sinha, Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19.3.2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Dillp Raosaheb Deshmukh,J. Heard on admission. 2. The appetlant is aggrieved by an order clated 1 5.11.2006 passed by 14th Additional District Judge, Raipur, District Raipur in Ctvit Suit No. 19-A of 2006 whereby the applicatjon under Order 39 Rute 1 & 2 read with Section 151 ofC.P.C. for grant oftemporary injunction from restrainjng the defendants/respondents herein fw continuing ^the construction of Hanuman temple, has been rejected. 3. Shri Abhishek Sinha, leamed counset for the appellant, ctid not dispute the fact that the photographs at page 35 show the stage of construction of the tempte on the date on which an ©ariierapplication for grant of temporary injunctjon was dismissed by the same Court on 19.04.2006. It was also not disputed that no appeal was preferred against that order. It js ateo not in dispute that th^ appellant herein dki not pray for restraining the? defendants/respondents ^&r construction of boundary watt around the temple while filing an applicatfon under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2. Lastly, it was also not disputed that the Hanuman Temple was constructed S5~. in the year 1970 in front of Raitway Station. Leamed counsel for the appellant contended that thereafter much alteration in the structure of tempte has taken place. 4. By the impugned order, the teamed 14th Additional District Judge, Raipur. consktered the fact that the eariier application for temporary injunction was dismissed which order has attained finatity. It also considered the avermente in paragraph 5 of the reply by the ctefendants that the renovation work of the tempte has atready been compteted. White dismissing the appHcation under Order 39 Rute 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. it ateo passed an order that the defendante shall be •^ responsjbte for thejr act if/is found that wrong declaration was made by them. On these premises, it refused grant of temporary injunction. 5. Having heard teamed counsel for the appellant, 1 am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The renovation of temple having been compteted or nearing completion as allegect by the appellant, and ttie eariier order of rejection of an application under Order 39 rute 1 and 2 C.P.C. at the stage of renovation of tempte having become final, the balance of convenience ties in favour of the respondents and the rejection of the appticatton under Order 39 Rute 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. by the leamed 14th Additional District Judge, Rajpur is well merited and calls for no interference in this MA. The renovation work of tempte undertaken by the respondents/defendants shall be at (heir own risk and ttie respondents/defendants shafl be bound by the final orcter, if any, passed in Civil Suit No. 19-A of 2006. 6. Misc. Appeal js djsmissed at the admJssi(Mi stage. The leamed 14BI Addttional Distrtet Judge, Raipur, js directed to expeditkHisly dispose of the CJvd Suit No. 19-A of 2006 preferably within a year from today. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge