Petitioners Plaintiff$ HIGH CGURT §F CHHATH$GARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.2585 of 29$? 1. Shahidunnisa Died am deieted 2. Abdui Jamir Slo Abdui Jabbar. aged 55 ‘ years 3. Abdul Hakrm Sie Abdul Jabbar‘ aged v about 45 years 4. Abdul Gaffer Sic Abdul Jabber, aged 40 years 5. Abdul Sattar S/o Abdui Jabbar. aged 40 years 6. Mumtaj Begum Wd/o Abdul Lattf aged 36 years 7. Samma Begum Dio Abdul Latrf aged 16 years 8. Sabir Khan S/o Abdui Latif, aged 12 ysars 9. Sadik Khan Sic Abdul Latif, aged 10 years No.7 to 9 are minom, ‘through their naturai guardian mother Mumtaj Begum Wdle Abdul Latif 10. Noor Bane 3/0 Abdul Jabbar, aged 36 years H. Abdui Nam Sic Abdul Jabbar aged 42 years 12. Abdul Am Slo Abdul Jabbar, aged 37 years 13. Gulshan Begum Dlo Abdu! Jabber, aged 45 years 14. Juiekha BegumDio Abdul Jabbar, aged 3Q years All are Rio Madhyanagarl Chowk, Mashanganj, Bilaspur, Tah. and District Bilaspur (0.6.) Versus 1. Dhruv Kumar Patil $Io Chandrabhan Sao Patil, aged-55 years, Rio Jarhahhatha, Bilaspur 2.1 Sheikh Arif, Sic Shaikh Ahmad, aged- 40 years, Rio ln front of Madrasa, Karbada Reed, Bilaepur, Taheil and Diatrict—Bilaspur (6.6.) Respondants Defendants .g,‘ 2.2 Shaikh Jad bi Died and deieted 2.2 Mehrajun Wdio sheikh Abld aged 45‘ (A) years 2.2(B) Adil S/o sheikh Abid, aged 25 years 2.2(C) Jakir Sle Shaikh Abid, aged 45 years Minor Tamanna D10 Shaikh Abid, aged 05 years 2.2(E) Minor Ruksar Dlo Sheikh Abid. aged 105 years No.2.2(D) and (E) are minors thmugh their natural guardian mother Mehrujun Ail Rfo-Near Emanbada Khapaiganj, Biiasur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) 2.3 Mohd.Aashik, Sio Shaikh Ahmad, aged— 24 years, 2.4 Mohd.8adik Qureshi, Sio Sheikh Ahmad aged~27 years 2.5 Mohd Sabrr Qureghr Sic Sherkh Ahmad aged 25 years 2.6 Terunmsha Wd/o Shaikh Ahmad, aged 60 years, Ali are Rio Near Nensr Video. Karbaia Road Kumharpara Biiaspur Tah and District-Bilaspur (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Consiitutian 0f indie} ...... MLMA. Latif Rahman, eounsei for the petitieners. None present for respcneerit No.1, though served. MrRam Kumar Tiwari, counsei for respondents No.2.‘i to 25 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) GRDER {DRAM r (24-8-201 1) By this writ petition under Article 226/22? of the Constitution of indie the petitioners have chaiienged the legaiity & propriety of the order dated 216.2006 (Annexure PH) passed by the S‘h Additional District Judge. Bilaspur in Miso.Civil Appeal No.4l2000, affirming the order dated 27.4.2000 paseed by the 2““ Civil Judge Ciaee—ll, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.2—A/2000. whereby temporary injunction against execution of decree passed by the competent Civii Court has been dismiseed. N9 [3... lnitiaHy one Civii suit No.60-A.’94 was decided betwsen the pariies. $ecend Appeai has alsc flied against the judgment and decree which was dismissed against the present petitioners and thereafter the present petitionera have fried civil suit on the ground that the respondents have obtained afaresaid decree ins first suit by playing fraud. They have aisc prayed for injunction 0f execution 0f decree passed in first round of litigation, which has been tinaiiy dismissed by ‘ the trial Court as welt as the lower appeiiate Court. I have heard teamed counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents tiled on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that fraud has been noticed after dismissal of second appeai. therefore, only decision of present suit which has been hied in the year 200i) stay of execution wouid be necessary. 0n the other hand, learned counsei for respondents No.2.1 to 2.6 opposes the petition. On due consideration of the documents and copy of the order impugned. especiaiiy the tact that in iirst round of litigation the present petitioners have chalienged the iegaiity and propriety of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court up to the High Court and thereafter they have died civil suit on he ground that the defendants have obtained decree by playing fraud and prayed for injunction which has been dismissed by both the Courts beidw and still no stay has been granted since 2006 i.e. since tiiing of the present petition, l do not any ground for interference in the order impugned. Consequentiy, the writ petition is iiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sdl~ T.P. Sharma Judge