an^I ?il (<;•)[+ '^EfT SffT^T 5b+l 3:eq''<<i<<i<7»<<, yiTf|y'i<o, (sipi'wy t{Wv\t (h^l* WI, 200 an^r T»aw (^fy??) TCnwotei sii^i SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE JUSTIOE DHIRENDRA MISHRA I.R. Petitioner Respondents Ragh|avje Vs Sush Ragh (CG) 1. 04.04.2008 B^lram Ahuja, aged about-adult, son of S(iri Parmanand Ahuja, R/o Naharpara, Rtiipur (CG) 2. Sfete of Chhattisgarh, through the Cjatlector, Raipur (CG). ordsr Mr. Kshitiz Sharma, Advo< Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Adv. Heard. By this petition under petitioner has impugned the by iearned 7t^ AddiUonal District whereby learned Additional respondent No.1 herein and 20.9.2007 (Annexure P-2) pass^ herein, Learned counset for the tf reasoned order had granted an petitioner herein restraining agreemented property. Howev^ District Jucfee has set aside ttie| respondent No.1 had entered inf however, when the petitioner <;ate for the petilioner. fortheState. ^tiifefflh lii*^if^i^st <r»t^.i< ^? stRp? <n!^t 2271 N0.2011/08 ShuMa.^ige 47 yeare son of Shri /jee, R/o New Shanti Nagar, Raipur flrticle 227 of the Constitution of India the of Annexure P-1 dated 13.2.2008 passed Judge, Raipur in Misc. Appeal No.21/2007 C|istrict Judge has allowed the appeal of the order of temporary injuncUon dated 4d by the frial court in favour of the petitioner settaside jetitioner submte that the trial court by a well (arder of temporaiy injunctlon in favour of the Ifie respondent No.1 from alienating the r, by the impugned order learned Additional jabove order. tt is argued fhat petitioner and 1:0 an agreement for sale of the suit property, l^arnt that respondent No.1, after repudiafing ^''^'s \ 1' ^-;'^..a[-HS—78 :'l-;"-%'i8. g yit . ~^,J ,^ rt. ^ ^? "»>. '•--..'"'j-' 's^l •^i-tiwif, WT^WW, (si^iyy Nl*1dl *Nlsb •^ 200 sn^T ?ir R;-I 'TTgIT3fH^T sti+fl^i A an^yr xpra; (4<tt-i«fiiti) TOnw^ifeisn^i ^' the contract illegalty, was some ottier persons, a suit respondent No.1 based on the into between the parties on 14] temporary injunction in the abov^ set aside the order of temporary] with an observation that the performance of contract dated petitioner has no prima-facie ca^ of convenience is also not in fa'1 favour of respondent No.1/def< restrained from transferring his After going through the| opinion that fte trial court haj jurisdicttonal error in in exercise ofjurisdiction The petition being devoi<| and accordingly, it is Consequently, I.A. No.1 conterjiplating qiN^^li im^i¥'^^fs^l' •d^i^K ii'aiRnaii^r to transfer the land in the names of 1|or perpetual injunction was fited against |agreement of-^ale (Annexure P-3) entered 17.2006 and also moved an application for ^ suit. Learned Additional District Judge has injunction passed in favour of ttie petitioner plstitioner has not filed the suit for specific 114.7.2006 and in these circumstances the je for grant of temporary injunction. Balance i+our of the petitioner, on ttie contrary it is in f^ndant No.1, as if the defendant No.1 is Flroperty, he shall suffer irreparabte injuiy. impugned order, 1 am of ttie considered i^ not committed any lllegality, inflrmity or warrants interference 227 of the Constitution of India. of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. elso stands dismissed. passing the| impugned order which under Article hereby disrfiissed Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge