A. HIQH COURT.OF CHHAmSGARHAT BIL^^UR SB : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITIMKERNWAKER W.P. (2271 N0. 3358/2007 PETITIOKERS Defendants 1. 2. Komal, aged about 38 years Omprakash, aged about 35 years, Both are son of Lakshmaa Chadravanshi, R/o. ViOage Mohgaon, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Paadriya, District Kabirdham {CGj Versus RESPONDENTS Plamtiff Falitram Chandravaashi, son of Tekrani, aged about 72 years, R/'o. VIUage Mohgaon, PoUce Statioa Kunda, Talisil Pandariya, Distdct Kabudham (CG) WRIT PBTITION UMDBR ARTICLB 227 OP THB CONSTITUSWI OF INDI& Shri Mahesh Pandey, couxuel for fhe petitk>ners, Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal, counsel for the rcspondent. ORAL ORDBR (22.04.2009) ChaUcnge iu the present writ petition is to fhe order dated 02.06.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 08/2007 by the District Judge, Kabudham (CG) whereby learaed appeUate Court wlule reversiag the ordcr of the trial Court dated 24.5.2007 has granted tem.poraiy mjunction in favour offhe respondent/plauitiff. It is admitted by bofli the parties that the evidence of the plaintiff has already becn concluded and for recordmg the evidence ofdefendants the case is fixed on 1.5.2009. -2. This Court, by order dated 20.06.^)07 bad stayed the effect and operatton of fhe uapi^aed order dated 02.06.2007 passed by the District Judge, Kabirdham granting temporaxy injunction ia favour of the plaintiff. Leamed counsel for the pettttoner submits fhat the order impugned of the Court below is prima facie fflegal and saaae is agaiast the settled principte oflaw. Supportiag the order tmpugned it has been submitted by Shri Saujay K. Agrawal, teamed counsel for the respoadent that fhe order is strictty ia aecordance with law govenung the basic pruiciplcs oflaw for graat ofteaipofaxy injunction aud fherefore the same caonot be iaterfered under Article 227 of fhe constitation of India. Be that as tt may. Lookii^ to fh.e fact fhat fhe case is already fixed for recordmg fhe evidence of petitioners/defendants, fhis petition is disposed of with a direction thrt fhe trial Court wfll decide fhe suit itself expeditiousfy aad pBeferabty wifhiu a period of fhree laonfbs finm the next date of hearing. TiB then status quo as existing today shall contmue. Needless to state fhat bofh, petitioners and respondent wffl cooperate ia the earty disposal of fhe trial and no unnecessaty adjoununent would be sought by fhje parties, It is being furfher made clear that this Court has not expressed auy opinion upon merits of the case aad fhe Court will not be mfluenced by any order or obaervatiDn passed by this Court ia the piesent writ petition. The Court woiild be at Uberty to decide fhc suit stricfly ia accoidance wifh law and on fhe basis of pleadiags and evidence of fhe parties. With tius observation the petition stands disposed of. Suguna <->^^ ^$^