^BaKWli '•SiSK" t'. ?<?« '^ w 75? ^ww^, ®TT)y<ie,F°!(yii'Hy,< NIWfT »^fl<*l 311^1 'q^T ( yit^q't^) an^rw f<!-fi<* ^TqT 3TI^?T sh*1I<ti TOiiW^iteran^i SinaleBench: Hon'ble K W.P. <227] PETITIONER RESPONDENTS vs 14.7.2008 Mr. Sunil Tripathj, Advocate IVIr. Manoj IVIishra, Advocate Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate Mr. Raj'endra Agrawal, Panel l-1eard. This petition is directed ag< 3.5.2008 whereby Miscellaneous herein against the rejection of his been further rejected. lc*>l'i(??TjLl1'f 'RFTcff ^f 'feT^ •<Fii;t^R ^aif^nan^r r. Justice Dhirendra Mishra ) NQ.2S78/08 Vikash IKumar Sarraf, S/o Kishori Lal Sarraf. aged atjout 20 years, by caste Sonar, R/o Sadar Road Ajnbikapur, Distt. Saiguja (C.G.) 1. Ipavi Kumar Sarraf, S/o Shri Kanhaiya l|.al Sai-raf, aged about 20 years. 2. IHaveen Kumar Sarraf, S/o Shri ItCanhaiya Lal Sarraf, aged about 19 years. 3. ifrakash Kumar San-af, S/o Shri Kishori Ij-al Sarraf, aged about 18 years. Res|3ondent No.1, 2 and 3 are R/o Deviganj Roap Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 4. Ijtaliram Aganwal, S/o Late Jhanduram ^grawal, aged aisout 55 years, by caste .t,grawal. 5. $atya Narayan Agawal, S/o Late [handuram Agrawal, aged about 49 fears, by caste Agrawal. Res()ondents No.4 and 5 are R/o Agrasen Warp Nagar Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (CG) 6. $tate of Chhattjsgarh Through: Colletor ^urguja Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (CG) ftr the petitioner. (or respondent No.1 to 3. for)respondent No.4 & 5. ILawyer for respondent No.6. kinst the order of Annexure P-1 dated qivil Appeal preferred by the petitioner tpplication for temporary injunction has tl'WS^l ^FStV gCTTi-BT, tl^WIM —FS/197—;i/20()8 —40,000. /^-^ '°%. ^ '"-"-"' '^ ^ 'i:!lfc 'ss°s".-!?? "%-^.»' ^ST "4i<^id<f, ®fl)y'i6,[s<di-Li^< *ii*«ni?i»*(i<*i an^fw R-fi* WT sn^ff sti*ii<»> h Sf^V ^f^! ('jcf[3«t<t<?) TOiiwdftgan^t Learned counsel for the Detl sale deed executed by respondent an application for mutation before tt moved an application for amendln^ property in questjon is recorded respondent No.1 to 3 and therefor^, any unilateral amendment in the m^[ 5. However, he submits that the liberty to the petitioner to raise the may be decided in accordance withl Learned counsel for the resb' is disposed of with the aforesaid lib^ Acoordingly, the petition is d| Consequently, I.A. No.1 &2| res|3ondents ^tl^'ilN ^wv^ ^ fs^ <[^+$i< ^siRmsii^r jtioner submits that on the strength of the 1^0.1 to 3, respondent No.4 & 5 have filed |e revenue authorities and they have also the mao. He further submits that the in the name of petitioner as well as the revenue authorities could not effect }p at the instance of respondent No.4 and [istant petition may be disposed of with ibjection before the revenue court, which law. )3ondents have no objection if the petition ^rty. fsposed with the liberty as prayed for. |also stand disposed of. Sd/- ~ i Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ITI^T ?r^r ys;uii^'4, n -FS/197—3/2008—40,000.