IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH MISC. APPEAL N0. (^ OF 2006 Appellant Plaintiff, ^ Dr. Tarun Kumar Naik aged about 40 years, S/o Dr. Radhe Shyam Naik, R/o Maoja - Baghera, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) .. 'f Respondents Defendants NNI^ ^^/ \w / w w/^' / ^ /^y ^"f / ^ <^<)^G03W6 ^ Versus ' 1. Shri Prakash Yadav, aged about 53 years, S/o Dhanpat Yadav R/o Jayanti Nagar Sikola Bhata Durg Tehsil & Distt Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Krishna Kumar Belchandan, Aged about 65 years, S/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Belchandan. 3. Kamal Singh Belchandan, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Badri Prasad Belchandan 4. Gaya Prasad Belchandan, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Badri Prasad Belchandan 5. Champalal Belchandan, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Badri Prasad Belchandan (Sl. No. 2 to 5 R/o MIG-1/934, Amdi Nagar, HUDCO, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) 6. Jijiya Bai aged about 62 years, D/o Late Badri Prasad Belchandan, R/o New Address - Opposite Shiv Mandir, Near Chowk, Durg, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) 7. Angeshwar Belchandan, aged about 27 years, D/o Tularam Belchandan 8. Uma Belhandan, aged about 23 years, D/o Tularam Belchandan 9. Bandana Belchandan, aged ^ about 19 years, D/o Tularam Belchandan ( Sl. No. 7 to 9 Caste - Kurmi and R/o Somatola, Tehsil ~ Mohla, Distt. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ^10. state of Chhattisgarh ^hrough the District Collector, Durg (Chhattisgarh) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1 908 ^3 ?^ ^fi^td^, ^^t^ij<o, ^t<rti-H^< AA/\- ^o • 6 .n; ^PI^r^^PER"""""""""'"""""""""""""""""/^200^ ^?r "^^ (<tq^<^) SK^^T'RF^W 'CTT ^1^1 %»*<?c»> ^ui^ ^^IW^f?^<Ri^? S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aaslrwal 29-10-2009 Shri R.S. Marhas, counsel forftfie appellant. Shri Ajay Owivedi, Dy. Govt. Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State^ (^dvocate with Shri Sanjeev Kumar |respondentNo.10. Heard on admission. The instant appeal is direct^d against the order dated 07-03- 2006 passed by Vlllth Additional qjstrict Judge (F.T.C.) Durg in Cwil Suit No.6-A/2006whereby and wher^under the application uncf©rOrder 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. filed b^ the appellanyplaintiff has been dismissed. The facts brieflly stated as unc^er: The appellant/plaintiff instiljuted a suit seeking reWef ©f declaration for title on the basisl permanent injunction. He has ^lso temporary injunction under Order 39 jRule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. Learned Trial jrecorded a finding that prima facie i|i possession of suit property. It is Qhl^idl^l^ 'WR^^ fe^<rf3T^R ^ ^tSP? 3T?^1 of adverse possession and for Iso preferred an application f©r Court after hearing both the parties, it did not appear that the plaintiff js also held prima facie by the trja! (pourt that admittedly the properiy stands in the name of defendar^ts/respondents and thereby the appljcation was dismissed. Shri R.S. Marhas, Jearned coujnsel for the appellant would subtnit that the learned Trial Court has eri|ed Jn recording ttie prima facie ly'^s^tssswvfw^f^-v^-^fv^^ ^ ^^(H^t^U^i^lict—FS/9S—T I /2G08—1,00,000. ;C—78 ^i^t '3RT 'f^fhF "wr ^n^T^iN? IN S -u^ Kw ~s^( ^ii^Kn^ ^Ti1<-i^<o, [®i<ni^^< —......}^-A.....^o;.....£..r6..J. ^ITRCII (t»*<(Cb -^200^ 31T^T TR^ ( yt^^) ^t<11<v< tll^^I ifny findjng that the appellant/plaintiff is| and, therefore, the order passed b^ deserves to be set aside. After hearing learned cou< perusing the order impugned, in finding recorded bythetrial Court is| correct. The appellanVplaintiff has possession over the suit property s|r the land stands recorded Jn the persons. In view of above, by no that prima facie, the appellantfplai^tiff possession of the sutt property. Mo| 2006. As submitted by the learned ] being recorded in the case. In vievi| at the verge of disposal, interferen^ Court is also not desirabJe. Therefore, appeal is dismiss4d. learned Trial Court shall decjde the within a period of six months from th\ In view of above, M.(C).P. No| cbl^lid^'l 'RT^f ^ f^x^ <f^i^i< '^affim^TT^i not in possession of the suit land the tearned triat Court is bad and isel for the appellant and sfter considered opjnion prima facie |based on record and appears to be wt fiiled any document shovwng his spnce 06-10-1983. On the contrary, rev^nue records in ttie name of other sjtreteh of imagination it can be said is in actual physical or legal \eover, thlsappeal is pending since |counsei for the parties, evidence is of the fact that since the matter is |;e in the order passed by the trial However, jt is directed that e (suit as early as possifole preferably date of receipt ofthls order. 1868/2006 stands dismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge