i SINGLE BENCH m THE Hmamtrmé'ey @t‘ym’émvan: m mwxa x' gay; wm'r pETI'rlo’w ‘g 2’27)- ‘mo‘-éml‘ ’/2bb"9_;; maheshram Patel ageé amat- 35 years san e'f—‘late shri Dayaram Pat§1 resiéaat of. village Bhaise Tahsil Pangarh mstt; Janjgir-Champa <c.c;i):'*§* :PETIT'IOFIEEM IP'-L-mT I :‘E VERSUS mrtiram Sahu ggea 4D years son af. &xakla Sahu . Kirithraxn Yaéao agee’l 4'1 years sen af Jeahm Yaéaa. $th resiéents cf village Bhaisa Tahgll Pamgarh District Janjgir- l». 2t: gyrrrxg mam ARTICLE 227 OF Trigmwswmwxcn XI—PIC—78 WWWWNILL .03m meal mm (Wu) ammf‘aww Wmm W?Wwrtm¥%%€?m ammwm Qwiwm S.B. Hon’ble Shri Ju§tice Prashant Kumar Mishra 1 3.92.201 1 . Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari. counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ravindra AgrawaL coun el for the respondents. Petitioner has caHed in qu stion order dated 15‘“ May, 2009 whereby the appellate Court, whil dismissing his appeal under Order 43(1)(r) of C.P.C. has confirmed he order passed by the trial Court rejecting his prayer tor grant of tem orary injunction. The plaintiff preferred the su ”for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in is exercise of easementary right of way and funher to restrain them‘fro raising any construction on the said right of way. At the outset, learned couns l for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the writ pet' ion and to contest the suit before the trial Court, however he apprehends that observation made by the Courts below may be used against him duri g course of trial. Needless to say that the find ng arrived by the Court at the interim stage while considering existenc of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss a only for the purpose of adjudication of the application under Order 39 le 1 & 2 of C.P.C. and the suit is to be decided on the strength of evi ence led by the parties during the