Rm? ELEM}? q) @ LNITHE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘ITISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(227)No. R6“ /2o11. PETITIONER§ /:1. Madan Sahu,aged about57 (Defdts. No. 1‘3 &4 years, S/o Late Shri Sal’ju Ewe—“L1 Prasad Sahu, Manoj Sahu, aged about 32 years, S/o late Shyamlal Sahu, Ashok Sahu, aged about 47 years, S/o late Shri Sarju Prasad Sahu, All the petitioners are residents of village Mowa, Sheetal Kirana Stores, Main Road, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.). Versus Mohanlal Kukreti, aged about 57 years, S/o Shri Hari Prasad Kukreti, r/o E/58, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.). State of C.G., Through Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ’ P @ HIGH NM COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227! NO. 2154 OF 2011 PETITIONERSL Madam Sahu and others. w DEFENDANTS NO. 1 3 8s 4 Versus RESPONDENTS : Mohanlal Kukreti and another. WRIT PETEION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . in e Benc Present : Shri Ratan Pusty, counsel for the petitioners. H K. on'ble Shri N. ‘5 Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. " v ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26m day of April, 2011) Instant petition cans in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 13-07—2010 passed by Seventh Civil Judge, Class—II, Raipur whereby and whereunder petitioners’ application flled under 7 Rule 1 1(B 82s D) of C.P.C., has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration to the eifect that the petitioners’ act of constructing boundary wall over the plainu'jrs land is unauthorized and megai and for injunction restraining them from doing such act. Petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC assailing maintainability of the suit on the ground: plaintid‘ has applied before the Revenue Authorities under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code for obtaining possession of the suit land and, ‘V therefore, the instant suit died Without seeking relief of S h: @D possession is not maintainable in terms of provision to Section 34 of Specmc Relief Act. Learned Trial Court considering the averments held: 3. plaint cannot be thrown out at this stage, dismissed the application. According to Shri Ratan Pusty,' learned counsel 4. appearing for the petitioners, the plaint has been cleverly drafted whereas plainu'n‘ himself filed an appliCation under Section %50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code to obtain the possession over the suit land. However, the photographs filed by the petitioners would show that the petitioners are in possession over the suit land. Therefore, the order impugned is without jurisdiction. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order impugned. From bare reading of the plaint, it cannot be inferred 6. that the plaintin‘ is not in possession over the suit Petitioners in fact want reliance upon the property. material placed by them on record. Thus, they failed to show by reading plaint averments that suit is barred under proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. In such situation, it appears the issue raised is a maxed question of law and fact, it would be decided by the trial Court after framing proper issues and aiter recording the evidence in accordance with law. At this stage, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order warranting interference of this Cnurt under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself nom - interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases Where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. em— Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge