IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT^FCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.PJ227) No. 137 of 2010 PBTITIONERS APPLICANTS ^l) Subhash Narayan Agrawal, aged about 47 years :2) Jagdev Narayan Agrawal, aged about 46 years, :3) Vishwanai'ayan Agrawal, aged about 42 years, All sons of late Shri Haricharan Lal Agrawal, R/o. Tatyapara, Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS -A) Jawaharlal Gupta, aged NON-APPLICANTS about 78 years, son of late Shri Govind Lal Gupta ^^y ^' .- "y>-" /•^l.''" o.l.^6 (?••'". ^•c<-^€\y \^;v??8-^ )-".'^y^:v' :2) Smt. Prabha Gupta, aged about 44 years, wife of Shri Nandldshore Gupta, R/o. Sector 10, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) :3) Smt. Latha Tripathi, aged about 42 years, wife of Abhinath Tripathi / :4) Smt. Varsha Gupta, aged about 40 years, ^lfl% late Dr. L;ixminarayan Gupta, Priyadarshani Nagar, Raipur presently at C/o. Dexal Electronics Design (Pvt.) Ltd. Unit 505-507 Karton Tower,-! Airport Road, Bangalore. t. :5) Ku. Vidya Gupta, aged about 36 years, D/o. late Dr. Laxminarayan Gupta, Priyadarshani Nagar, Raipur House No.478, Raipur. /6) Ganesh Shanker Gupta, aged about 68 years, son of late Govind Lal Gupta / :7) Rajendra Gupta, aged about 58 years, son of late Govind Lal Gupta, All resident of Tatyapara, Raipur, through All Rajendra Kumar Gupta, Advocate, "Shiv Sadan" Tatyapara, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Wrtt Petition (2271 No.137tt010 PeUtiQnere Resoondents Vereus Subhash Narayan Agrawal and others. Jawahartal Gupta and others. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawat, counsel for the petitioners. Writ Petition under Article 227 oftheConstitution of India ORAL ORDER (13.01.2010) Heard on admission. (2) On an application filed under Order 39 Rute 2 (A) of C.P.C. preferred by the petitioners in the Court below for violation of Order dated 20.10,1997 directing the parties to maintain status-quo, ttie teamed Court betow has dismissed the application after finding tiiat the respondents have not violated the order of stetus-quo. P) Learned counsel for the petitioner submite that by installing a water cooler in the window, the respondente have comm'rtted breach of tiie order of status-quo. From the orders passed by the Courts betow, it would wppeai ftat bofc the Courts have found that ty instellation of a water cooter, order of status-quo has not been wolated and thatfrom the photcgraphs submitted ty the petitioners it does not appear that the light and air flowing to Iheir property has been cdastructed. The appellate Court has also observed ttiat the photographer who has taken the photographs has not been examined to support fte violation of order of status-quo and further from the photographs tak§nprior to the alleged violation and subsequent to that, it is not clear that any atteration has been made. The find'mgs recorded by the Court betow and affirmed by the tearned appellate Court are finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in this petition flled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. IBini -A- (4) There being no palpabte error of jurisdiction, Ihe instant petitton fa'rts and is hereby dismissed at the admission^ageteeW^ Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge