@R 'IGH C 'gr— 5:5, T * . P i Writ PatEtian (Art.22?) NG.3§57 of 2911 (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution oi indie) MLAtanu Ghosh, counsei for the petitioners. Mr.Suehobhit Singh, oounsei for respondent No.1. Mr.Vinod Tekam, Panei Lawyer for respondent No.2/State. Petitionem 1. MohdJsrai}, S/a. Late Mohd.§saque, Plaintiffs Aged about 45 years 2. Mohd.!srakii, Sio. Late Mshdlsaque, Aged about 40 years. 3. MohdAsfaque, S/c‘ Laie MohdJsaque, Aged about 35 years. -, Abrahim Miya, Sio. M§yan Miya, Aged about 62 years. 5. Mohd.Sa§im Ansari, SIO. Abraham Miya, Aged about 42 years. 5. MohdKaiim Ansari, Sic. Ibrahim Miya, Aged about 35 years. 7. MohdDaHm Ansari, S/o. Abrahim Miya, Aged abeut 8O years. 8. Jamna Khatun, D/o. Late MohdJsaque, Aged about 45 years. 8. Jubeda Khatun, D/o. Late MohdJsaque Aged about 46 years. Aii by caste-Mus!im, Rio. Viilage Charcha Colliery, P.S. Charcha; Tahsii Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). Versus Respondents . Sayeed Ahmad, S/e. Jamiruddin, Defendant Aged about 45 years, Occupation Business, Jo. Vtiiage Charc'na Comery, P.S. Charoha, Tahsi! Batkunthpur, Distrtct Koriya (C.G.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Threug’n the Cottector, Baikunthpur, DtsttKeriya (CG). ”2” @ (83: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J.) ORDER (7-1 2-201 1 ) . By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioners have chaiienged the Iegaiity and propriety of the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the District Judge, Koriya, in MiscrCivii Appeai No.13/2007, affirming the order dated 14.8.2007 passed by the 2"“ Civil Judge Class-l, Baikunthpur, in Civil Suit No.53A/06, whereby the 2"“ Civil Judge Class-l has passed the order under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of ihe Code of Civil Procedure and permitted respondent No.1 to repair the house in question which is in possession of respondent No.1. l have heard Fearned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and copies of other documents tiled on behalf of the petitioner. Virtually both the Courts below have not granted injunction, but have permitted respondent No.1 to repairthe suit accommodation which as per para 6 of the plaint is in dilapidated condition. Considering the claim of the plaintiffs and nature of order, i do not find any ground for interference. Consequently, the writ petition is iiable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. interim appiication stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge . . .