,v IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH MISC. APPEAL N0. yxr Singl& Bench OF 2006 Appellant ^PIaintiff Dr. Tarun Kumar Naik ^ aged about 40 years, S/o Dr. Radhe Shyam Naik, R/o Maoja - Baghera, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) RespQndents ^Defendants Versus 6^ 1. Prafull Maheshwari aged about 32 years,S/o Late Shri Dungarmal Maheshwari Resident of Gudhiyari Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh Kamlesh Kumar Deshmukh Aged about 52 years, S/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Deshmukh Dilip Kumar Deshmukh Aged about 37 years S/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Deshmukh Basant Kumar Deshmukh Aged about 30 years, S/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Deshmukh Smt. Khorbahrin Bai Aged about 76 years Widow of Late Shri Badri Prasad Deshmukh Ramkumar Deshmukh Aged about 70 years S/o Late Shri Pyarelal Deshmukh All respondents from serial No. 2 to 6 resident of Mouja Janjgiri, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh . ^ ,7. State of Chhattisgarh through ^ the District Collector, Durg (Chhattisgarh) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER ORDER^43 RULEE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 h-5' >' ^6/ ^ ^ 'T^r ^iqi<riq, ^Ttlw!<o; f^<nw^< /V),.^. f^O ,^ ^. ^mwi ^Ni^n p r-^200 ^ ^3ff "^^ ('^3^1) ^i^^rf?^ '^TW^I^TOF pHHHMWVH^i^. -aw-.S^i-aff^v^W^e^f I^WC^rft^ 3?i^?I S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaajrwal 29-10-2009 Shri R.S. Marhas, counsel forjthe appellant. Shri Anand Gupta, counsel foi|respondents No.1 to 6. Shri Aj'ay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. ^dvocate with Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the Stat^|respondent No.7. Heard on admission. The instant appeal js directe^ agatnst the order dated 26-04- 2006 passed by IXth Additional Distrjct Judge (F.T.C.) Durg in Civil Suit No.S-A/2006 whereby and whereun^er the appitcation under Order 3© Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. filed by the app4llant/p!aintjff has been <3Jsmissed. The facts briefly stated as und^r: The appetlant/plaintiff instit^ted a suit seeking retief of declaration for titte on the basis permanent injunctjon. He has a| temporary injunction under Order 39 Court after hearing both the parties, it did not appear that the piaintiff is ii^ possession of suit property. it is aiso held prima facie by the tn'al Cjourt that admittedly th©property stands in the name of defendants/respondents and thereby the application was dismtssed. Shri R.S. Marhas, tearned couijisei for the appellant wouid & jbmit that the learned Trial Court has err^d in reco-ding the prima facie ^RT^fel^^ 'WR^ff^ fe^ ^Fsf^K ifr^tfW^H^T jof adverse possession and for jso preferred an application for Pule 1 & 2 ofC.P.C. Learned Trial (•ecorded a finding that prima facie ^n^r^ ^^N ig^Rpr <H-Ji'^t(c}—i^/9S —11/2003— i ,00,000. ^s^ ;C—78 3^1'^lf^W ^8?T3:r?^T^^W ^ ^ Kvr WNCTI <h*ii^ 3"5sr ^|^ld<Lt, ^Ti1<4^<o, [®t<ni^^< M^ ^o' ^^^/ '^200^ sn^i-q^TC'iqt^^^) ^TTW^rft^ ^- 1"y siince finding that the appellant/pialntiff i^ and, cherefore, the order passed bt deserves to be setaside. '. .4 After hearing learned cou| perusing the order jmpugned, 1n finding recorded by the trial Court is|i correct. The appeHant/plaintiff has possession over ttie suit property the land stands recorded in the re\| persons. In view of above, by no ^t that prima facie, the appe(lant/pla|ntiff possession of the suit property. Mo| 2006. Assubmitted bythe tearnedj being recorded in the case. In vie^ at the verge of disposal, interferen^ Court is also not desirabie. Therefore, appeal is dismiss^d. learned Trial Court shall decide the withjn a period of six months from th^ In view of above, MI.(C).P. No| cbl<4(<ri41^ 'W^ff^^^ <f^<^i< '^3Tfim3?T^l not In possession of the sujt land the learned trial Court is l^d and isel for the appeilant and after considered opinion prima facie |based on record and appeare to be lot filed any document showing hjs 06-10-1983. On th©contrary, tenue records in th®name of other treteh of imagination it can be saict is In actual physical or legal [•eover, this apjseal is pending since |counsel for the parties, evidlence Is of the fact that siince the matter is ;e in the order passed by the trial However, jt is direeted that the |suit as early as possible preferably date of receipt of thls order. 11300/2008 stancts dismtssed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge