C g [ob/C 1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (227) Nogim OF 2009 (3.341 l PETITIONER : / Kundan Lal S/o Ratiram Kadra, PLAINTIFF aged about 66 years, R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through DEFENDANTS Collector, Raipur (C.G.). The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.). I 3. The Tahsildar, Bhatapara, DistriCt Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Ni HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.5529 of 2009 Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri counsel for the petitioner. .Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. of t ons ia Writ Petition under Article 227 he Ctitution of Ind JtU .Lu . ORAL ORDER ' (Passed on 23rd April, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. The trial Court, vide its order dated 4-8-2009, dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for restraining the defendants to interfere in his possession on the suit Iand. The appellate Court has also dismissed the petitioner’s appeal underprder 4V3 :Rulewt(r)kof'thle/_JCI‘ode of CIVii Procedure, 1908. The suit land is a piece of Government land on,which the petitioner claims to be in possession for last about 60-70 years. 4. Without entering into the merits of [the dispute it isldirected that preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of this order before the trial Court. The petitioner shall cooperate in the " rial Court for early disposal ofthe suit. 3. Petitioner Kundan Lal versus Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh and others r 1 L Wt rl‘ .;;;l v?” Lg’xw‘ ::~-; Present: 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dismissal of his application under Order 39 Ruies 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may prejudice the, trial Court. It is settled Iaw that findings recorded while deciding an application for grant of temporary injunction are only for the purpose of finding out the existence of prima facie case, balance ofconvenience and irreparable loss and that the decision on the suit is based on evidence adduced by the parties in course of trial. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- asitant Kumar Mistua Judge ’ «,az‘: alot...ev..vil i'ul miuiit vi Lie-cum .. Pr