IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION(U/A 227) N0. ^^03 OF 2010 PETITIONERfS): 1. ^mt. Urmila Yadav, Aged DEFENDANT(S) Aboutr 70 Years, W/o- Rama Yadav, 2. Umesh Yadav, Aged About- 50 Years, S/o- Rama Yadav .•o/ .0.^' ^^-" ^w7 ..•"' ^?i ,^A'^iy /.^\y ^'^' /' ^y/ y</y 3r. Deepak Yadav, Aged About- 48 Years, S/o- Rama Yadav 4. Smt. Indrawati Yadav, Aged About- 46 Years, D/o- Rania Yadav 5. Smt. Vrindawati Yadav, Aged About- 44 Years, D/o- RamaYadav 6. Smt. , Jamuna Yadav, Aged About- 42 Years, D/o- Rama Yadav 7. Smt. Kapura Yadav, Aged About- 60 Years, D/o- Rama Yadav All are R/o- Shankar Nagar, Thasil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ i^g.^^i RESPONDENT(S):1. Smt. LaxmiYadav, Aged PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT 2. About- 52 Years, W/o- Satruhan Yadav, R/o- Shankar Nagar, Thasil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ "y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHMATTISGARH AT WLASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte ShriJusfice Prashairt Kumar^Wshia Writ Pekttton (2271 No^883 / 2810 PETmONERS RESPONDENTS Versus Smt. Urmila Yadav and Smt. Laxrra Yadav and aaiother. Shri Vinay Pancfey, counset for the petitioners. Miss Sangeeta ^4ishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondenfrNo.2. WJUT PETITION UNDER AmTIGLE 227 OF THE CONSTFrUTIOhKW ORALORDER (86.09^010) Heard. (2) Challenge in this wril petltion under /^ticte 227 of the Constitution of India is to the ordere pa®$e<:tby the |^)peUate Court as wetl as that of the triat Court aWowing the ptaintiff's ^espqndwt No.t apptication under Order 39 Rute 1 & 2 of C.P.C. and granting a temporary injunction in her favour to restrain the p^iGogier&^^^^^ tnterfering in the plalntiffs ppssession on ^ si^ tend arict^^^r^^ alienate the suit tand dwing pendency ofthesutt. (3) Ptaintiff Lsoaro Yadav fited a suft for de^ratton andj?errpi»^rrt injunctton on the pteadings that tate Dhaiw^ purchased^^^ by registered ^rie-<leed dated(^^1961 and 15<)&-197Q ^^ possesston. He died issu^ess and was treaUng the pteBrttff a& his; dau9hter,therefwe,-a 8sl; executed a registered WtU. m her fawur on 28-05-2001 and after death of Ohaniram on 1403-2002 she isin pc^session of the sutt tand, however the defenctants are disposses®her and are (ikely to atiengte the tend. 1- •a£3-^i --i 1 -3' (8) It is setktect law that in ©(erciseof powers umter Arttete 227 ofthe Constitution of (ndia the writ Court is nol entttled to ii^erfere with the tindlngs of the fact or to unsettle the same if it ha®been arrived at on correct appreciation and the fmctings are not perverse. (9) There is no substance in this writ p^itton and <s hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge l<-