Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46681 (CHH)

ABID HUSSAIN v. KOLLURU SRI RAMAMURTY

WP227/123/2025 · 2025-02-05

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:6439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 123 of 2025 1. Abid Hussain S/o Mohammad Ayub Aged About 34 Years R/o Road No. 6 Shikshak Nagar Behind Navdurga Kirana Store Kohka Bhikai Tehsil And District- Durg District- Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No. 02- 04 ) 2. Khalid Hussain S/o Mohammad Ayub Aged About 32 Years R/o Road No. 6 Shikshak Nagar Behind Navdurga Kirana Store Kohka Bhikai Tehsil And District- Durg District- Durg (C.G.) 3. Shahid Hussain S/o Mohammad Ayub Aged About 30 Years R/o Road No. 6 Shikshak Nagar Behind Navdurga Kirana Store Kohka Bhikai Tehsil And District- Durg District- Durg CG. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Kolluru Sri Ramamurty S/o Late Kolluru Aged About 72 Years R/o Qr. No. D/29 Hospital Sector Bhilai Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) General Mukhtyardhari Ranjit Singh Gurudwara Road Supela Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2. Narayan Sambhare S/o Yadav Rao Sambhare Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Teen Darshan Mandir Camp 2, Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Durg Chhattisgarh District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners/defendants No. : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate along with 2 to 4 Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05. 02.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari to issue quashing the orders dated 30/11/2023 passed by the Appellate Court below in Civil Suit No. MCA/34/2023 which reiterated the decision of the learned trial Court passed on 25/04/2023 in Civil Suit No. 77A/2023 and in effect allow the petition to set aside the temporary injunction. 10.2 Cost of the proceedings. 10.3 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of case.” 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that a Civil Suit was filed along with an application for temporary injunction and that was allowed by the learned trial Court. An appeal was preferred by the defendants before the learned Court below and the same was dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed. He would fairly submit that issues have already been framed; therefore, the learned trial Court may be directed to expedite the proceedings of the Civil Suit and make all endeavours to conclude it within a reasonable time. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 3 would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned Senior Advocate, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to make all endeavours to conclude the proceedings of the pending Civil Suit expeditiously as the Civil Suit was filed in the year 2023 and the order of temporary injunction is operating in favour of the plaintiff. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant