IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Art.227) No. ($48 OF 2010 PETITIONERS : ’17 Laxmichand Devangan, aged (Plaimiffs) abou‘r 52 years, son of Lu‘re Bhagwan Das Devangan. x2. Sanfosh Devangan, aged about 35 years, son of LaTe Bhagwan Das Devangan. 3. Jdwahar Lal Devangan, aged about 43 years, son of La’re ‘Bhagwan Das Devangan. /4: Sm’r. Shanfi Bai, aged abouT 7O years. IMO {3M6 wmnm No.1 To 4 are residenfs of Near Naya Talab, Gudhiyari, Raipur (CG) /5. Smt. Vidhawa‘fi, aged about 45' years, wife of Toshan Lal Devangan, residen’r of Badna Ward, Dhamfari (CG) . Sm‘r. Benula’ra, aged abouT 45 years, wife of Dukalu Ram Dewahgan, residenf of Near Bus S’rand, Kharora, Disfric’r Raipur. . Sm’r. Gaya'rri Bai, aged about 39 years, wife of Shri Joshi Devangan, residen’r of Main Road, Khariyar Road, DisTric’r Novapada (Orissa). T / 5 All Through The A‘r’rorney Holder Shr‘i Jawahar Lal Devangan, Son of LaTe Bhagwan Das Devangan, residen‘r of Near Naya Talab, Gudhiyar‘i, Raipur‘ (CG) Vs RESPONDENT / : The Municipal Corpora'rion DefendanT Raipur‘, Through ifs Commissioner, Municipal CorporaTion Raipur, (CG). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.24s of 2010 Laxmichand Devangan and athers VerSUS The Munipipal Corporation Raipur ORDER Post for 06 -02-201 0 Sd//- Prashant Kumar isra Judge é\ Mh 457 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.248 of 2010 Petitioners Laxmichand Devangan and bthers Versus Respondent The Municipal Corporation Raipur Present: Shri B.P.Sharma, counsei for the petitioners. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india ORDER (Passed on orit‘February, 201 0) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court rejecting their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent/Municipal Corporation from interfering with their possession and not to undertake any work on the suit property, which is a tank. 2. lt is the case of the plaintiffs that they own the suit tank and r embankment which is the suit property, however, the . w respondent/Municipal Corporation, without any consent or permission, ‘u has started entering the tank and performing some work thereon ‘gwithout any authority of law and, therefore, the suit for permanent ./ injunction has been filed along with the application for grant of temporary injunction. 3. The defendant/Municipal Corporation, in its reply, submitted that the Corporation is only cleaning the tank in public interest and no construction work is being carried inside the tank. Only a wall is constructed outside the tank and its embankment to save the public road from being damaged and that the defendant/Corporation is not damaging the tank itself nor there is any effort or intention to dispossess the plaintiffs. 4. Both the Courts below, in view of the statement made by the defendant/Corporation in its reply that only cleaning of the tank is carried on and no damage is caused to the plaintiffs’ property, have rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction. The Courts below have found that the plaintiffs do not have a prime facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss in their favour. 5. Having perused the orders passed by the Courts below, this Court does not find any palpable or manifest error of jurisdiction committed by the Courts below in exercise of their discretion while rejecting the plaintiffs’ prayer for grant of temporary injunction. The ‘ petitioners have failed to makeout any case worth interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. The present writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. j Sd//— t Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge