IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDRICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.NO. ^ SmffteBeneh /2006 APPELLANTS/ PLAINTIFFS .RESPONDENTS ^r30:^ 's^- r^ 1 Gopiram Patel S/o Sunderlal Patel, ^ aged about 38 years, Occupation ~ Agriculturist 2. Manohar Patel S/o Sunderlal Patel, aged about 36 years, Occupation - Agriculturist 3. Shyamlal Patel S/o Sunderlal Patel, aged about 33 years, Occupation - Agriculturist All are R/o Village Koshmanda, P.8. - Pussor, Tah. 85 Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Smt. Mongra Chouhan Wd/o < Late Urkula Chouhan, aged about 58 years, Occupation - House wife, Ra/o Vill. Pussore near Police Station, P.S. Pussore, Tahsil & District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Smt. Rukmani Chouhan D/o Urkula Chouhan aged about 42 years, Occupation House Wife , R/o Vill. Shivpuri Post — Genvani, Tah. 85 Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The State of C.G. Through - Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) MISC APPEAL UNDER ORDE^43 RULE^ 1(R) OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE XI-HC-78 OT^T^T^icb cTSTT3TRST$b^lct> s? L. CQ^ ^ ^%- /-^ ^ 3^ ^[^W^, wS\W[<o,^^Wy. : (^.4-H^,€^/^^ *<l^dl sb^l<b ****************./*** W^ 200 341^1 M^lcb (li?f3sr^T) ^rTW^cT^TI^T 13.6.2006: Slm Amit Shaima, leamed coit Heard on adiiussion. Tlus appeal has been filed ag| Suit No.22-A/2006 by Additional D| filed by the appellants for temporan?| below on the gi'ound that plamtil^s restraming the defendants from alien| the land m question already stands passing any order for temporan7 mjun| Leamed counsel for the appel below had dii'ected the parties to m| propert\r ancl therefore. the Court bel| the application for temporaiy injuncti stands transfeiTed. Takmg into consideration tl transfeiTed on the date ofpassmg oftl coiTimitted any illegality by rejecting the impugned order. In. tlie result there is no meril dismissed. It is accordingly dismi< appropriate steps available to them -any is breached in any marmer whatsol ct>)i^I<n<flri Hi^idl ^tel^'<Ri<^i< ^3Tf^T3Tl^r ^nsel for the appellants. ^inst order dated 28a'4"2006 passed m Civil |strict Judge; P^aigarh, whereby application injunction has been rejected by the Court had prayed for temporaty mjunction rting the suit propert)'' but; however. since ransfen'ed. no puipose will be severed by ^tion. lants submits that 01-1 21-4-2006. the Court imtain statas quo with respect to the suit >w has coiiimitted an illegalit}' by rejecting .l^n on the gi'ound that the suit land already |e fact that the land m question stood \e iinpugned order, the Court below has not |he application for temporaiy injunction by m tlie appeal and the same is liable to be ^sed. However, the appellants may take t^der law in case the order of status quo; if tm :--Sd/- Dhirendra IVIishra Judge uAder