Satish K. Agnihotri, J. - (1.)By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge legality and validity of the impugned order dated 17.07.2008 (Annexure P/9) passed by the District Judge, Janjgir -Champa in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 6/2008, whereby the appeal was allowed and the application field under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") before the court of Civil Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir in Civil Suit No. 48 -A/2007, was rejected.
The plaintiff/first respondent filed a plaint before the Civil Judge, Class II, Janjgir, District Janjgir -Champa for permanent injunction. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for grant of status quo and temporary injunction against the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff/first respondent. The Civil Judge, Class II, Janjgir -Champa, by order dated 11.02.2008 (Annexure P/7) dismissed the application observing that the plaintiff/first respondent has failed to establish his possession lawfully, therefore, in a casual manner the application was rejected. In appeal field by the plaintiff/first respondent in the Court of District Judge, Janjgir -Champa, the District Judge allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction as prayed for in the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. The District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the application was filed for permanent injunction without seeking a declaration and on the averment made in the plaint it was, prima facie, found that plaint schedule land was ancestral property and according to the plaintiff, plaintiff was in possession of the property. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the petitioner has not proved, prima facie, his possession lawfully, is contrary to the well settled principles of law. the entire suit was based on possession. The finding with regard to the balance of convenience and irreparable loss was not considered by the trial Court. Learned District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff/petitioner has no right apparently to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff/first respondent. The interference with the possession during pendency of suit would cause irreparable loss and inconvenience to the plaintiff/first respondent. Thus, Misc, appeal was allowed and the interim injunction as prayed for was granted.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

I have considered all the aspects of the matter. There is no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in recording finding by the District Judge that the plaintiff/first respondent has made out a prima face; case and if the petitioner/defendant was allowed to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff/first respondent, the same would cause irreparable loss and balance of inconvenience is also in favour of the plaintiff/first respondent.

This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case.

Thus, the order dated 17.07.2008 (Annexure P/9) passed by the learned District Judge, Janjgir -Champa is unexceptionable, just & proper and does not warrant interference.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine. Consequently, IA. No. 1 stands disposed of.

;