HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Writ Petition (c) No. 1666 of 2007 Petitioner Versus ResDondents :1. 2. 3. SB Hem Lal, son ofJhuru Sahu, aged about 40 years, resident of Panhda, P.0. Borsi, Tehsil-Kurud, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Om Lal, son of Bisahu Sahu, resident of Village-Panhda, P.0. Borsi, Tahsil-Kurud District-Dhamtari (C.G.) Govind Sahu, aged about 28 years son of Phaguwa Sahu, "Secretary" Gram Panchayat Panhda, resident of Panhda, Tehsil-Kurud, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) Phaguram Sinha, aged about 34 yeare, son of Bh-aiya Ram Sinha Dhananjai Kumar Diwan, aged about 25 years, son of Sukalu Kanwar. Geeta Bai aged about 34 years wife of Om La! Caste Sahu, Panch Gram Panch-ayat Panhda Vimla Bai Dhruv aged about 35 years wife of Baidu Ram Dhruv Panch Gram Panchayat Panhda. Shyam Bai aged about 28 years, wife of Suresh Dewan-gan, Panch Gram Panchayat Panhda. Residents of Respondent No. 4 to 8 Village-Panhda, P.0. Borsi, Tehsil-Kurud, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AaniHotri. J. 5. 6. 7. 8. Present: Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 1/State ORDER (Passed on this21st day of March,2007) By this petition, filed uhder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 11.01.2007 (P/10),passed by the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, whereunder the Additional District Judge has rejected the Miscelianeous Civi! Appeal No. 18/06 upholding the order dated 28.8.2006 (P/9), passed by the Civil Judge, CSass-11, Kurud, District DhamtariinCivilSuitNo. 188A/05. -———— ^- 5. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner flled a Civil Suit for permanent injunction. i'n the pending civii suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procsdure, 1908 for temporary tnjunction against fte respondents, restraining them to interfere \vith the possession of the petitioner over the suit property. The Civil Judge, Class-11, Kurud, after hearing the parties at tength, held that it is not ctear asto whetherthe disputed premises is erected on the suit land and whether the petitioner is in possesslon ofthe suit land. The petitioner has not produced any document indicating the fact that the petitioner was in possession of a particular portion of the land, bearing Khasra No. 489/59, area 2.17. Admittedly, the suit 'andwas a government land. For grant of interim relief for temporary injunction, in rsspect of a particuiar portion, it was necessary to file a dsmareation certificate. Prin'ia-facie, the Civil Judg® did not found balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the Civii Judge, vide order dated 26.8.2006 (P/9), dismissed the said app!ication. Against the order dated 28.8.2006, passed by the Civii Judge, Class-11, Kurud, the petitioner preferred an appeal, being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 18/06, before the Additiona! District Judge, Dhamtari, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.1.2007 (P/1 0), holding as under:- "Ritl'i"! "lll'yipt'll ^ WIST SPfRTiaff ^T ^re itn T.n??! feig f^ :QW 'W? 499 ^q»m 2.17 1?^S ^ ?t ?u(R ^if ^te ^TTT qiT 11 ft<llfSd *lp[/»lpf q»T T^ feWT t, R>lti<t)T Si^qicf 2000 ^f Jfis ti ^n '•'rrerero ^ Mdi-j.'tiK urgf torter/ l^ft f^ ^ f^F^ ^T ?t?n t q?f -^ft qiT •ra?n g^E^T ^TT 'uTT'n -3Tf^ a-rt ??R»T •tntll'«b-l tft qiWEH uTFn 'mf^l ?<R>T Wfo} IfS t fSs ^f! W^ A' 'fflW-SB SRI ^l^r Wiai M^ ^ ^•STR 3Pftai«ff fSpff •f^S tR cheuii ^pn ^regr t. q? TS^ Tfei q? grer i^ w fiWT •iff 11 f^R°r ^raidfl ^ vm 9^cr SWT TR! ^ sryiR SW?T 'n? 499 "•^m 2.17 ^s swf€sf^ t cisn -SfS 's^ WRI-T ^ft 113Rr: 5^ <B^ TR gsw ~^e v ^' ariteNf %T -wiPirt ^ ?teT t 1 Vf^ Spft^Nf ^ °&a.T-T ^ Sf^HTC ^ ^q'ff 1^ ^ ^ ?<3IT? npf 'fts »mr ^T TRST gTE& ^SIT t ^ ^trf^isR tf^ '(ftll*^ 'gTfl q? Pmffer ^WTT ^ifN fe "swft ^Pt ^ ^NT ^sf ^ TIR*T ^cft t ^ V^f •Htftk) ^ft f". 6. B/- 7. ¥-- 1 have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parttes and perused therecords and documents appended thereto, no infirmity, iliegatityor irregularity has been noticed in the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order isjust and proper and needs no interference. There is no jurisdictiona! error aiso in appreciation of the facts in passing the impugned order. Thus, this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with the order. As a result and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. ——„. . Sd/- ,. •1 Satish K.AgniIiotri ! -. Judge J ,,