^ \..» A '^» <^\'(oj \ (II •as-. iqle Be I'&te iVSr. ice Pritss'iker Dr.vaker 21 PLAINTIFFS 1) Kaushllya Agrawal, Aged about 58 years; W/o. Radhsshyam Agrawai, R/o. 11, Shaia !V,ara Choubsv L>oiony, Kaspur v'-'u; 2) Sawarlya Agrawai; Aaed sbout 3S years, D/o. Radhe^ftyam Ayrawai, R/o. 11, Shaia Mara Choubey Coior rs^;,-.,.». //^./^\ Kaipur {<^v) 3) Supriti Agrawai, Aged about 31 ysars, W/o. Sawariya Agrawa!, R/'o. 11, Shala Marg Choubey Coiony; D—:". i- //^/~^\ s\wpuf ('^''-s) 4) Radheshyam Agrawai; Aged about 7 ysars, S/o. LaSe RaiTikumar Aarawal, R/d. 11,' Shaia Mara Choubey Coiony, Raipur (CG) Versus Pannalal Natthani, (Aaed not knovtf to r^Sr'^&TtA ^IT ucrd'yuMi^ l the peilliutici^ S/o. Kamsniai Natthani, R/o. Sadar Bazar, Raipur, ui&trict Kaipur ('-'^) Shri ManojParanjpe, counsei forthe petitioners. Shri Kshitiz Sharn'ia, counsei for ths rsspondent. IT CONSTJTUTiONC^LSNDSA f'^sr\A l^nnQV \Z.Q.\J^.^J'\}^) With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finaiiy. Cha!isnae in the writ petition is to the prder dates C4.11.2008 passed by 8th Addst'iQna! Distnct Judge (FTC), Raipur in Misc. Civi! Appea! No. 09/2008 in which the learned Appeliate Gourt has confirmed the order dated 15.07.2008 refusing to grsnt in'.unction in favour ofthe piaintiffs. Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondenVdefendant be restrained from aileRating the property -KM »1 —•~i-~--~—-- or creating anv third partv interest cver the sarne. In the appiiGatlon fiied By the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read v./ith Section 151 of the Code of Civl! Procedure, it has been prayed that the piaintiffs are trying to deveiop the iand, therefore the respondent may be restrained from creating any hurdle reaarding development ofthe iand. ^^ On the other hand, counse! for the respondent/oefendant ,^' supporting the order impugnedsubmlts that there is no illeaaiity inthe order imouaned- Reisef sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the court below and relief souaht for in this Court are entirelv different and, therefore, the same cannot be aranted. have heard counsel for the partles and perused the material avsi'able on record. Orders have been passed strictly in compliance v,/ith the proyisions of Order 3S Ruie 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. There is no illegaiity in the order impugned nor there is anv error apparent on face of the record warrantirig interference ofthis Court under Artlcte 227 ofthe Constitution of india. The oetitlon beina' 'in/ithout substan.cs !s iiabie to be dismissed and it Is herebv dismissed- Counsei for the petitioners/p'aintjffs further submits that the suit was fiied on 4.8.2007 and t'ne evidence is at the prellmlnary staqe. Therefore, it wouid be in the interest of justice If the tria! Court is direcied to dlspose of t'ne suit within the stipuiated Deriod. Taking into consideration the fact t'nat the suit is pending since 4.8.2007, therefore triai Court is directed to decide the suit K1 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copv of this order. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^ ^ '••;11 m na i ' Ni ^lil