ISe lfff:s l^.'-?l; B'i!! :JN THE H3SH OOURT OF aODZC^rfURE &T BIjU®PUR(CHH&TT3SGARH) WRIT PETmoB NS' Z3-S~G / 6 3 PETrPIONEER ihatarlal, son o£ Gangaram,aged about 44 years, reslflent pf Village-Gorra,Tehsil and Bistrlct- Raigarhj;C.S.) 1 V E R S U S RESPOM>ENTS :w^y 1. Rewfci.daughter of Laxraan, aged aboutSOyears, resiaent of V.i.1Iage-Sorra, Tehsil aafl D.tstr.ict-Raigarh, (C.G.} ^r^S-2" :Dol Ki.inwar.wife of Khageshwar, aged about 65 y^ars, resident of Village.Birhabl-idtha.Tehsil-Babhra, Dits ti-i Gt-janjgiF-Ghampa, presently residing at Village- Gorra,Tehsi.l and Dlstrict-Raigarh, (C.G.) 3. Hansk'amari.wlfe of Hemprasadi,^ ! age<3 aboat'60 years.rgsldeatliof: . ! VJ..llage-Ghodld,ipa, Tehsil, 'ariff \ ' Blstrict-Raigarh,<C.G.). • 4» Khushi Ram.soaof Satyanania, !: resident of Vlllage-Gorra, | i i, Tehs.i.J. and Bistrict-Ratgarh, (C.G;. )j •s,; 5. Bansldhar.son of Ehansingh.resldenfc Vlllage-Gorra.Tehsil and district- Raigarh,(C.G.) s;~; 6. Sifeia Qevi.,widow of Narik.j. 7. Tarachand ,son o£ HankJ., s 8. Ghanshyana.soRuOf nkj., Resppnaents 6 to 8 iare resiaeiyfesiiof ?lllage-Gorra,Tehs:tl anfl dlstrACt- Raigarh,{G«G.). oiEi 9. State o£ Chbattisgarb.through Co.llectcir. Ratgarh« District-Raigarh,(e.G.) .i.ts ^ITEmiT20N»t®®&RTIjGI.BS 226/227 GFJTH^^^CTy:®N II »;•*•«• * * • llfii^r IBI M: s' i: XI-H0.22 .3ii^B;S>i. ^'^'^^ Sh*tPtl Vfi f' • '^ 's^?'^ipfRra, 'STftwis, ft^iyy sni^r ^f^sK ;. ^...t-u:-f'.<0^2A-S'&/'le'05 """Wt 200 'wwfr«)«i<w W^Sf' SII^I^gRR^liTO Shri Proshant Mishra, 'counsl Miss Chitra Shrivsstavtt, @^ .No.9. . • Heqpd. By De'ti'tion under Article petitioner hds chalienged The ord^ AddiTional Sessioris Judge, whsreby his application under O^ dismissed. ' The^casa of -Hie pstitioner and permanent irijunction in reiaj scheduie on pteadings inter dlia the sonsoficomnnon ancestors were also divided in four parts share. Respondents Nc.i to 3 S^ room faltinq in his father's sh< star-'t'ed demolidiinq •riie wglls objec+ed •fro by ^ttie pe-fitioner. ond denied the suit allegationsl er <»it<ii<'i<i)'t'o'nif^ft^t <l»l'(5;l< i? afpin anSRr il for the petitioner. ^ • • , • v+. Advocate, for the State/respondent 326/227 of the Constitution of India the dated 16-09-2003, passed by the Fff-s* ftaijarh in Misc. Civil. Appeal No.l5./2Q02, tder 39 Ruie 1 and 2 of C.P.C. hos been Is that he oreferred a suit for decictrationi 1-ion to the iands/house described in •in& the property has been diyided between •the hpuse including kitchen, garden^et& i|nd the; disputed iarid feit in his fathw'^ iing cousin brothers used to rsside in s: However, after 06-03-2000 •fhejyf |fo rssfie new •cmaft'ucfmn, which wasf Thtft <sh htre IFh®defendants filei written statemwtlsl to tnem thfi area in.tl'igirl % li;.;iiNi! XI-HG-22 n.i 'g:qi-<1141fl0;»alwi<°,i«»ai«iy •^^i^ :'•'^'-^ "^'^ta '•^.":; '^ ^;^.^;-;^ 3IT^?T 'q31% ^:S.!.XSV.!. !N|l«l<1t!<**ll<; t.^l^tffO^ ""^ 2(K» ftl'b^.y" 'ikWidl'l'liraHi'S ls"3 <ln<si'<. ^FaPmai^n their pogsessien belongs to thei^ father Laxman Patel and they ape entitled to continue to remdin in possessi|sn cmd raise construcfjon. &efendant No.5 preferred a separatB written Statement suppor+ing the case of the plaintiff.Theplointiffpfefer're^anapplicatiQn unaer Order 39 Rule land 2 of C.P.C. for restraining The d^fendants from raislng any constructlon on the disputed land. The said appli^ation was rejected fcy the trial Court and on an appeal preterred by, th^ pidintiff the same was upheld by -me appellate Court. . ; lho.ye heard learned couns^il for the parties. Learned counsel for the^petitibner very fairly submitted at this sts^e thct't' i" view of the concur]^nt;findings of both the Courts, hs does: not Buant to grgue the case On tl^^ merits. However', since the petitioneris ciaiming The disputed land to be (is land ond if during The pendency of -rfie suit any construction is raised o •l petitionersucceedsjin the syit.in 1 .. • ' disputed land will unnscessarily ^ the disputed iand and uitimately ir the [•1+iat eventany construc+ion raised on the treate, interest emd^comptica+idns in the matter. He submitted a directi<tn to the effect that any eonsl'ruetioni roised during^the p^hciency of th^ suit wiil be subjecf to the out come ofj the suit may kindlY jbe mgde. Th^ request of the leamed couns^l Ifor the petitioner appears to be reasonat^ fe'since the civil suit is pending regardingj ,-.,.,-.!—^ agpdf OOQVHS-O^ -/PS • •^pw^U Ado3 R?tf!+^ 3H+ -10^ psi+iiua aio sa+^d .^^^^°3^a^^+^re4iitMWW3H+^^p^ ^np w W^^^ "° P^ X "o^^ ^ ^ ^•"°^^0, ^ WM p^^ip S! uo^d ^ ^ .|tt ^° ^^—PUD g+: l ^ o+ p.BS^ 6u,ADti pub ^^ 3^ ^ i^un03 Pauwal P-3ay buwl •s+uDpua^apsift^.tss-N.1" AU]D ^p o+BujoB+ou,! W 3p^s;W^qo y.n.^ a^BEMte)tei^ MSfcji?^»jBMltk^ft ^- j^jsateSitt^iiB .Btxy^ BOZ "£B:.^..;..........^-......-^filtiss31BIi'lft' ^S-L^:Tf:':'v^":S~(^~" - ' ' :~"'s ';7']':|iMh.:,J||^^,,,^ SK -SSt s^^:' lEBtB^,'2!i&y^;ttlal&ya;^K 1^. •^^a6- •ffi^SBsy. lifeB^Ug il •} :l •I %-3H-K •feis^^r