^

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR

^Vrit Petition f227) No. 5^ /2014

PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS

RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS

y

^

7]

"s

/"/

^^ J l] Bhola S/o Khelua, aged about. 65 years, R/o. Village Silsiwan, P.S. SE Tahsil. Surajpur, Civil & Revenue District. ^Siirajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.

Nantiira S/o. Kholuwa, aged about. 55 years, R/o. ViUage Aghina, P.S. & Tahsil. Surajpur, Civil &. Revenue District. Surajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.,

JffiRSUS

• 1] Ramdhan S/o. Jolo, aged about. 50 years, R/o. Village. Parri, P.S.Sc Tahsil. Surajpur, Civil & RevenueDistrict. Surajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.
• 2] Balsai S/o. Jolo, aged about. 45 years, R/o. Village. Parri, P.S.& Tahsil. Surajpur, Civil & RevenueDistrict. Surajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.
• 3] Munna S/o. late Moharsai, aged about. 25 years, Village. Anrokha, P.S.& Tahsil. Surajpur, Civil & RevenueDistrict. Surajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.

4] Hirmen Wd/o. Ramcharan, aged about. 45 years, R/o. Village Jur, P.S.& Tahsil. Surajpur, Civil & RevenueDistrict. Surajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.

5] Fulsai S/o. Sodhu, aged about. 40 years, R/o. Village. Parri, P.S.Sc Tahsil. Surajpur, Civil 8c RevenueDistrict. Surajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.

Jhelu S/o. Sondhu, aged about. 38 years, R/o. Village. Parri, P.8.8;: Tahsil. ^~ Surajpur, Civil & RevenueDistrict. Surajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.

Baso D/o. Chorhin, aged about. 50 years, R/o.Village. Parri, P.8.8;: Tahsil. Surajpur, Civil Sc Revenue District. Surajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.

'^

8] Smt. Kanta Devi Agrawal W/o. Ramawtar Agrawal, aged about. 40 years, R/o. Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, P.S.& Tahsil. Surajpur, Civil & RevenueDistrict. Surajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.

9] Ramawtar Agrawal S/o. Dwarika Agrawal, aged about. 45 years, R/o. . Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, P.S.& Tahsil. Surajpur, Civil 8c RevenueDistrict. Surajpur, Dista-ict. -Surajpur, C.G.

10] State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Surajpur, Civil & Revenue District. Surajpur, District. Surajpur, C.G.

WRTT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA

उच्च न्यायालय, छत्तीसगढ़, बिलासपुर

XI-HC

h P(227) No. 98/20 मामला क्रमांक .....

आदेश पत्रक (पूर्वानुबद्ध)

आदेश का दिनांक<br>ग आदेश क्रमांक	हस्ताक्षर सहित आदेश	कार्यालयीन मामलों में डिप्टी रजिस्ट्रार<br>के अंतिम आदेश
	S.B.: Hon'ble Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
	10.2.2014
	Ms. Priyanka Mehta, counsel for the petitioners.
	Mr. Rahul Tamaskar Panal Lawyer for the State

Heard on admission.

Ŷ,

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 18^th September, 2013, by which the learned trial Court has rejected petitioners' application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for maintaining status quo over the property in dispute and subject matter of the litigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the co-owner of the property in dispute, but some of the defendants/relatives of the pet tioners, have sold out a part of the joint family property to respondents $\beta$ & 9 and on that land, respondents No. 8 &9 have started raising construction of petrol pump. It is submitted that if the petrol pump is allowed to be constructed, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss. This aspect has not been duly taken into consideration by the Court below.

The prayer made by the petitioners to maintain status quo has been considered by the Court below and taking into consideration that even according to the petitioners, respondents No. 8 & 9 /purchaser are in possession of the property in dispute, the Court below has rejcted the

उच्च न्यायालय, छत्तीसगढ़, बिलासपुर

$XI-HC-78$

Praveen

电空空调

Ÿ

国国国

मामला क्रमांक <u>प्राप्ता स्थापकर सन्</u> 20

आदेश पत्रक (पूर्वानुबद्ध)

आदेश का दिनांक<br>हेरेथा आदेश क्रमांक	कार्यालयीन मामलों में डिप्टी रजिस्ट्रार<br>हस्ताक्षर सहित आदेश<br>$-2.$<br>के अंतिम आदेश
	application of the petitioners. The consideration on which learned Court<br>below has rejected the application of the petitioners, can neither be said<br>to be extraneous nor irrelevant. The petitioners could not demonstrate
	how the construction of petrol pump would result in a situation of
	irreparable loss.<br>Therefore, I do no find any jurisdictional illegality or perversity
	warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory
	jurisdiction.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava