y- HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH: BIL/^PUR Writ PeUtion (C) No. 3500 of 2007 Petitioners 1. Smt. Devmati Thakur, aged about 70 yeare, widow of iate Jhuru Singh. 2. Santosh Singh, aged 40 years, s/o late Jhum Singh 3. Naresh Singh, aged 37 years, S/o iate Jhuru Smgh 4. Smt. Meena Singh, aged 42 years, W/o Devi Singh. 5. Smt. Kanya Kumari aged 34 years, W/o Santosh Singh. All above R/o near Jatiya Talab, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhaffisgarh, through - Coliector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur 2. OfRcer In-charge (Manager), Govemment Pouitry form, Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Articte 227 of the Constifcition of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Shri Ravish Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, Gevt. Advocate for the State/ respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 25th June, 2007) (1) By this petition filed under Article 227 of the ConsUtution of India, the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the impugned order-dated 03.04.20)7(Annexure P-1) passed by the Additiona! District Judge, Biiaspur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.13/ 2006, whereby the order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the 9th Cfyil Judge Class-11, Biiaspur m Miscellaneous Ch/il Sirtt No. 512006 was conflrmed and Misceltaneous Civil Appeal was rejected. (2) The indisputable facts, in nutshelt, are that the petitioners/ plaintiffe filed a Civil Suit before the 9B1 Ch/il Judge Class-11, Bilaspur for declaration and permanent injunction. In the pending suit, the petitioners/ptaintifls filed an application under Order 38 Rutes 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seekir^ interim injunction against the respondents/defendants. The 9t Civil Judge Class-li, Bilaspur, after having considered alt the facts, documents and submissions of the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitionere have not made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and Uie balance of eonvenience and irreparable loss to the petifioners have also not been established. (3) Being aggrieved and dissatisfled with the order dated 28-02-2006, the petitioners/plaintifls filed an appeal, being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 13/2006 beforetheAddrtionalDistrictJudge,Bi(aspur,whereinthe court below, after having examined the case in detail, came to the conclusion that the petiljoners have failed to prove asto whieh is the land in dispute, on which they were seeta'ng interim injunclion, as no documents were produced by the petitioners/plaintifls to establish the case. In vfew afVhsA, the learned Additional District Judgeconfirmed the finding and the order passed by ^ Civil Judge Class-11, Bilaspur and dismissed the appeai. (4) I have heard tearned counse! appearing fer petitioners/plaintiffe, examined the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 1 am of the opinion thatthere is no infirmity, irregularity or procedural error in the impugned order passed by the court below so asto warrant interference bythis Court under supervisoryjurisdiction. (5) it is well setUed principle of law that undw Artiete 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has Jurisdiction of judiciat revtew ofthe order ». passed by the Court betow, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings based on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of law or there Is grave failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this Court can also entertain the petition in its supervisory jurisdietion if there is perverslty, irr^ularity or iltegalify in the process of decision, not in the decision itself, which is not in the present case. (6) As a resuit and for the reasons aforestated, this prtition is dismissed, summarily. Sd/- Satish KAgnihotri Judge Karuna