mGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGA3RH ATBILASIPBR Writ PetitiOnNo. 6599 of 2005 PETmONERS Defendants RESPONDENT Plaintiff 1. The Adhyaksha Nagar Panchayat Amarkantak, Tahsil Pushparajgarh, District Anuppur (MP) Through- Its President/Adhyaksha namely Narmad Singh son of late Jagannath Singh, aged about 36 yeafs, resident bf Rajendra Gram, Tahsil and District Anuppur (MP). 2. Chief Mumcipality OfFicer, Nagar Panchayat, Amarkantak Tah. Pushparajgarh, District Anuppur (MP) Through : Municipal Offlcer (Chief) namely Vikram Singh son oflate Shankar Pratap Singh, aged about 50 years, officiating as CMO Nagar Panchayat Amarkantak, Distt. Anuppur (MP). VERSUS Mahant Nareshpuri Guru Mahant Balrajpuri, aged about 57 years, resident ofvillage Tanwar Dahhara, Tahsil Pendra Road, P.S. Gaurela, District Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sourabh Shamia, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGEMENT (Passed on ..i'h..dsty ofNovember, 2008) ;:•-•• • • . • . • . 1. The plaintiff/respondent flled a suit for permanent injunction, against the petitioners/defendants on fhe ground that the suit land falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Ghhattisgarh State, and as such the petitioners authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere with the disputed land of Jaleshwar Mahadev Mandir. t;Es§i 2 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed an application alongwith plamt under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, read wifh Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Pendra Road. The Civil Judge, Glass II, Pendra Road, after having examined all the aspects ofthe matter, prima-facie, found that the land in dispute was not in possession of the Mandir Tmst, as the respondent/plaintiff has failed to produce any documents showing his possession over the disputed land. Accordingly, fhe application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, was rejected on 21.06.2005 (Annexure P/6). 3. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffrespondent preferred an appeal in fhe Court of District Judge. The Additional District Judge CFTC), Pendra Road, having considered all the aspects ofthe matter, recorded fhat the necessary beautification and construction in fhe disputed land would require dispossession of fhe plaintiff7respondent from the disputed temple, Sant Kutir & Dharmashala, and the same would interfere with the religious worships peFfonned by the plaintiff/respondent. It was further found that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff / respondent. If the defendants/petitioners are permitted to carry out the work of constmction or beautification, the plaintiff/respondent would suffer irreparable loss. 4;"Leamed Judge accordingly granted iaterim injuncfion in favour of the plaintiff7respondent and allowed fhe application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, before the Civil Judge Class II. The petitioners have preferred this petition challenging the order dated 13.12.2005 w'~ ^ •-L . ;£.-iSa ;;.6i:E:it ?£:S;;S^i^^i .lia-.feS^'tBAii^ J-'' .^i '^•f^sSSf":^f:' .(AimextBce^P^y^assea^^s.^^lE'irsl;.1^^^ , ••^.Pendra'Itead,^Baaispur.:'l':?/i:;';;,^ 5. ShriM^.®haduri,:lealffi^G0unseI;a{)p^^ .would^suBtdit fKat fli&"o^ A^ellate^iAiiffiority'ffiayipr^judiG^^case-o^ the leamed'^Juage has.recc^ jurisdu^Qnl^ the dis^ut^ilafld.J^Ever^ofher^ shonld^sft be i^straiaettifrc^ subnitts'lhat;tlie,impugi^o^ intenniinjunetiGn.'',.'....^:: .:,;':;,;-.';..'',.;,'' ! -,;: •••:: •':•.,,',:\'^:^''; '"'.;::'.' ^. Per corftr^' SBri Soui-abtts. Sharma,; les^^ respctffletit/plai^fF ^ ^ pre}ui^c^&^^at^'wia^^a^!fflieioKs^ subjectto'imal deeisiGuiWffi^ .aU^tKe'5oittts|m fh^GOHFt^^ • .settied.'^'T^tmpBgneB'ifi^ ^ •leeoBiing.evideBBefeai^&affluig^ss Court' 1<^ .'fUat:;!:'balaaGe;?-^^ I: •plaiirfif^sR0i^eD^^s''®o]FN PGwjafandis<aBt0<Sait^^^ •DhannashalEL S fhe^gtifibners^aieaot^njlffi^ :and.';fbea;uli:ficaiiGii^^ teepai^le-loss, ^ff iii?tlig^i"o(^s,Mi^^M andottteTwligKm&fiUt^ioilsifrllte'te^ I.:haye^.:lieErd,;'learned^'G nsSr^:ia|>p; ^|;i^ ^S'yi''':'3'''^^'- ^^^^:;- .'y^'^' pleagii^^&di',:dQCument^^8gp|BB|ii|tB^^£;g •^^^^'^'^ observations recorded by the Court below are on the basis of prima-facie satisfaction, which is the requirement for grant of interim injunction. The Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that if the petitioners/defendants are allowed to make constmction and beautification in fhe area, which itself is disputed as to whether the area falls within the temtorial jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh or the State of Madhya Pradesh, the plaintifB'respondent would suffer irreparable loss. There is no infirmity, irregularity orjurisdictional error in the impugned order. 8. Reliance of the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners in the matter of Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Another is not relevant to the facts offhe case, as in the matter ofMahadeo (Supra), Pune Municipal Corporation had- taken widening of fhe road to remove traffic congestion. In fhat case, it was observed that the Courts must consider the likely impact on the public purpose and should suitably mould the relief. The next contention ofgrant ofinterim injunction would amount to final reliefis noticed to be rejected on the ground that no final reliefhas been granted. 9. Reliaace of the petitioners in a decision of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in fhe matter of Ashok Kumar Bajpai Vs. Dr. (Smt.) Ranjana Bajpai is also not applicable to the facts offhe case. 10.It is well settled prmciples oflaw fhat the interim orders passed are always w subject to fhe final orders in the matter. The interim orders can always be corrected or revised at the fmal stage. (See State of M.P. and Others Vs. M.V. Vyavsaya & Co.3, Para 19). ' 1995 (3) SCC 33 2 AIR 2004AUahabad 107 31997(1)SCC 156. -J -^,-^. 1% 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. SdA '^ :.' ' SatishK.Agniiiotri Judge Sahu ..\).