HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PBTITION (2271 No. 3896/2011 PETITIONBR PLAINTIFF/ APPBLLANT RE8PONDENT8 ^DBFBNDANTS VBRSU8 1. 2. 3. 4. Rukhxnaai Bai D/o Preialal Sataaaii aged 39 year R/o Mission Road, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.). Amar Lal S/o Sainaylal Rajesh S/o Anjor Sai Bhekhe S/o Roop Sai AU rcsidence of Village Japeli, Katghom, Distt. Korba (C.G.). State ofC.G, Through CoUector, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLB 227 OF THB CON8TITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hoa»bleMr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Kumai'Tekam^ P.L. for the State/respondent No. 4. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 21/07/2011) By fhis petition under Ardcle 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioner has challenged fhe legaUty and propriety of tlie order dated 3/9/2010 passed by Additlonal District Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in M.C.A. No. 02/2009 afimning the order dated 16/2/09 passed by CivU Judge Class-2 Katghora iii civil suit No. 75-A/07 whereby in absence ofaay docuinent ofpossession trial Court has disinissed fhe application for graat of mjunction under Order 39 Riile 1, 2 read with Section 151 ofthe CivU Procedure Code filed on behalfoffhe petitioner. Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate for fhe petitioner and Mn Viaod KumarTekaoa, P,L. for the State/respondent No. 4 are heard. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that plaiatiff has fiiled the document of ownership ie. Bl of 2005-2006 which shows fhe ownership of fhe petitioner same was sufficient for drawiag aa (^ ij -Z-— '^^)'^y •••"^,^%^" ,-...^J mference of prima facie case ia favour of the petitioner but Court below has not consMered fhe aforesaid document, AppeUate Court has opined fhat petitioner has filed fhe document of possession later on aad appellate Court has not eonsidered fhe same ia exercise ofappellate jurisdiction. Although, order reveal that ia absence of docunient of possession trial Coiirt has not granted temporary iajunction ia favour offhe petitioner, Reasons best known to the petitioner, petitioner has not filed docui3ient of possessiou before fhe tdal Court at the time of decidiag legatily and propriety of fhe order passed by fhe trial Court, appeUate Court was under obUgation to examiae legality and propriely of fhe order passed by trial Court on fhe basis of material available beforc it, whUe exaininiag such question appeUate Court has not committed aay iUlegality requinng any iiiterierence in exercise of supervisoiy jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is liable to be disinissed aiid is hercby dismissed at ftie stage ofadmission itself. I.A. No. 01 is also disniissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^