^ Petlttoners Res^ondents COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR Vvrst PetjtlORNo.3287 of 2095 1. Mshatar Pai Singh, aged about 53 yers; S/o !ate Shri Rlshirsj Singh. 2. GendaSi Singh @ Dhinandan Singh aged about 60 years, S/o iate Shrl Tribhuwan Singh. 3. Ravl Bhushan Pratap Singh aged about 42 years, S/o Jate Shri Bodha Sharan Singh. Ail caste Kanwar, R/o Rajgarhi, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). Versus 1. Anii Kumar Pandey aged about 37 years, 2. Rajendra Kumar Pandey, aged about 45 years, Both S/'o late Shri Radhe Hari Pandey. 3. Smt.Laian Bai W/o iate Shri Radhe Hari Pandey; R/'o VilSage Durapa Present Address Sarvamanga! Nagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Dlstrict CoSiector, Korba (C.G.) OWrit Petition under Articie 227 ofthe Constitution of india) Mr.Yashwant Tiwari, counsei for the petitioners. Mr.KA.Ansari, Senior Advocate with Mr.Devesh KeSa, counsei for respondents No.1 to3. iVlr.Vinod Tekam, Panei Lawyer for respondent No.4/'State. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) QRDER (23-11-2011) 1. By this writ petitjon under Article 227 of the Constitution of iRdia the petitjoners have chatienged the iegaiity and propriety of the order dated 6.4.2005 passed by the Additionai District Judge, Korba, in Mlsc.Civi! .^^~ -^- f^ Appeal No. 10/04, affirming the order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Civii Judge Ciass-ii, Kotghora, in Civsi Suit No.44A/02, whereby the CiviS Judge Ciass-li has rejected the application filed by the petitsoners undsr Order 39 Ruie 1 & 2 read wlth Section 151 of the Code of CIvii Procedure. 2. ! have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused ths order impugned, order of the Cjvii Judge Ciass-ii, Kotghora, copy of written statement and other documents fiied on behaif of the partles. 3. Learned counsei for the pstitioners submits that that right to warship of the petitioners has been denied by both the Courts beiow In thesr tempie and thereby both the Courts belov^ have committed ISEegaiity. Learned counsei further submits that even the respondents are not maklng proper management and arrangement of the temple. 4. On the other hand, iearned counsei for respondents No.1 to 3 opposes the petltion and submits that in the ilght of th& orders dated 21.3.1996 & 6.5.1996 passed by the First Additionai District Judge, Biiaspur, in Civii Suit No.19A/95, affirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 17.3.1998 in Misoeilaneous (First) Appeai No.591 of 1996 and Civll Revislon No.957 of 1996 the Courts belov^ have not committed any ilisgaiity. 5. In the light of the aforesaid orders relating to the same property, whiie dismjssing the appllcation for grant of temporary injunction and appeai agatnst such order both the Courts beiov/ have not committed jurisdictional error or iliegailty warranting Interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 6. Consequentiy, the writ petltion is iiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dlsmissed. Hov^'ever, both the parties are at iiberty to fiie appropriate application for joint triai or as a cross suit by the same judge. No order as tocosts. —_—- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^-