Govind Ram Agrawal v. Haji Mohammad Hanif Qureshi
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 550 of 2015 Govind Ram Agrawal S/o Prahlad Rai Agrawal Aged About 54 years Resident Of Village Chandrapur, P.S. Chadrapur, Tahsil Dabhra, Civil And Revenue District Janjgri Champa (Chhattisgarh).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Haji Mohammad Hanif Qureshi S/o Haji Mohammad Ismail Qureshi Aged About 86 Years Resident Of Station Para Sakti, P.S. And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)
2. Anil Agrawal S/o Kailash Agrawal Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhra, P.S. Chandrapur, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)
3. Prakash Agrawal S/o Kailash Agrawal Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhra, P.S. Chandrapur, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)
4. Smt. Meena Devi Wd/o. Kailash Agrawal Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Village Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhra, P.S. Chandrapur, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)
5. Swati Agrawal D/o Kailash Agrawal Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Village Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhra, P.S. Chandrapur, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)
6. Ramesh Agrawal S/o Ram Kumar Agrawal Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village Chandrapur, Tahsil Dabhra, P.S. Chandrapur, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)
7. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner - Shri K.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State - Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer Order On Board 23/07/2015 Heard.
This petition has been filed against order dated 03.07.2015, by which, the Court has refused to grant ex-parte temporary injunction.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was filed in respect of the land
owned by the petitioner and there is a decree passed in respect of the subject land in another suit which is being executed. The petitioner, therefore, filed a separate suit for seeking a declaration and injunction against his dispossession in execution of decree passed in the other case.
3. At present, the Court has only refused to grant ex-parte temporary injunction. The case has been directed to be listed on 05.08.2015, on which date, application for grant of temporary injunction would be considered by the Trial Court. The reasons which have been assigned in rejecting application under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC are neither irrelevant nor extraneous. In injunction matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order unless there is a patent error of jurisdiction. The petition is misconceived in law and is therefore dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J U D G E Rekha