/^•^•'-^'^^•^^^j^^^^^^^^.^ ./ ^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HiGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) !/:. M.A.NO. y—> /2007 Sllg APRELLANTS RESPONDENT 1. y" 3. ^ Pavan Kumar Agrawal, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal. Ashish Kumar Agrawal, aged aiDout 30 years, son of Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal Rahul Agrawal, aged aj3out 28 years, son of Shri Suresh Kumar Ag rawal All are resident of Kuber •-TdLK-0 Mohalla, ^g^ NaiJa^ Distt. '/Y Janjgjr-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS ^RESPONDENT ^_ PraJ^^Agrawal, aged through his natural guardian Pradeep Kumar AgrawaJ^ resident of Main Road, Netaji Chowk, Janjgjr-Champa, (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE l(m .OF TH£CIVJL PROCEDURE GODE. IQOS^^ WGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bencti: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra APPELLANTS RESPQNDENT M.A.No.lS/2007 Pavan Kumar Agrawal and others. Versus Prakash Agrawal Shri G.S. Agrawat, Senior Advocate with Mtes Veena N^ir, counsel for $he appeHants. Shri Varun Sharma, counset forthe respondent. APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (rt OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1808 ORALORDER (07.09.2010) Heard. (2) Thte is defendants appeal under Orcter 43 Rule 1(r)of C.P.C., chattenging the order of temporary injunctton granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff/respondent thereby restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering in the ptatntifFs possesston on the suit property cturing pendency of the suit. By an interim order dated 25-04-^X)7 this Court has directed the parties to maintain status-quo till the nexk date of hearing, however the said order te still operative. (3) The triat Gourt had found the primQ facie case, balartce of convenience and irreparabte (oss to be in favour of the plaintiff, however the order of status-quo passed by thts Court is sttlt operative. Counset for tt^e appettants submits that the impugned order deserves to be interfered wfth because the trial Court has not constelered the facts of the case in its true perspective. (4) On the other hand leamed counsel for the respondent would submit that the order passed by the trial Court has been passed after / etaborate discussion about the rights and entitlement of the parties; ^.^•^-^-^ .^lj '"^^y,^/ "^ss^y plll'ffl^ -. -^- therefore, there is no need to interfere wtth the discretion exercised by the trial Court. (5) 8e that as it may, since the interim order passed by this Court is continuing for the (ast more than 3 years, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suft as eariy as possibte and preferabty within a period of eight months from the production of certified copy of this order. The order of status-quo shalt continue for a period of e^ht months from today. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^ \-