IN THE HON'BLE HIGH'CDUR'I' OP CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(Art227)NO. -^^ / 2010 si^€ PETITIONERS Plaintiffs RESPONDENTS Defendants ^ -••' ..^ ^^ f§^" ^^ ~ /" .^4^ ^•\y ^•" 1) Basanti, D/o. Bhaoola, aged about 40, Caste Korwa :2) Janak, S/o. late Kehta, aged about 50 years, Caste Uraon, Occupation Cultivation Both R/o. Village Silsila, TahsU Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus ,<^' 1) Parshuram S/o. Shri Konda, Caste Uraon, aged about 30 years, Occupation Cultivation :2) * Ainar Sai, S/o. Lati, Caste Uraon, aged about 40 years, Occupation Cultivation :3) Jivitram S/o. Ramnath, aged about 80 years, Caste Uraon, Occupation Retired BSF Soldier All R/o. VUlage SUsila, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (C.G.) :4) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f1_i_ TTTa^'"'iT_TT_ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 8.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Basanti and another Versus Parshiu-am and others Appearance: Shri Suryakant Mishra, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lanyer for the State/respondent No.4. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (27.09.2010) The courts below have rejected petitioners/plaintiffs application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC after finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour. It is the finding of the courts below that possession of the defendant is mentioned in column No.12 ofthe Khasra Panch Shala to the effect that defendant is in possession of the land and has constrocted a house on 0.006 hectare. It has also been observed by the appellate court that defendant Amar Sai S/o Lati Ram is in possession since last about 20 years and thus the plaintifFs are not eatitled for grant oftemporary injunction. (2) In the opinion ofthis court, concurrent finding recorded by the courts below with regard to existence of prima facie case, balance of fl. -i convenience and irreparable loss cannot be interfered in this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India as the jurisdiction of this court under article 227 is limited and supervisory in nature, vvhich is to be exercised sparingly. (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any glaring defect or perverse finding or arbitrary use of discretion by the court below while passing the impugned order. (4) There is no substance in this writ petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed. However, it is directed that the trial court shall do well to dispose ofthe suit as early as possible. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^