Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5488 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 27 of 2025 1 - Bajrang Kahara S/o Shri Amrit Lal Kahara Aged About 40 Years R/o Amaraiya, Bhatapara, Ward No. 20, Janjgir, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) (Defendant No. 1) 2 - Aditya Mishra S/o Shri Bhairo Prasad Mishra Aged About 21 Years R/o Nahariya Baba Road, Near Canal, Janjgir, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) (Defendant No. 2) ... Appellants versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Parmanand Sahu S/o Shri Jagannath Prasad Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Podi (Rachha), Tahsil- Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff's) 2 - Mithila Sahu W/o Late Mahaveer Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Vijayapuram Road, Phase-1, Bilaspur, Tahsil- Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Harsh Sahu S/o Late Mahaveer Aged About 25 Years R/o New Sarkanda, Bangali Para, Gali No.-3 Bilaspur, Tahsil- Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Amisha Sahu D/o Late Mahaveer Aged About 29 Years R/o Vijayapuram Road, Phase-1, Bilaspur, Tahsil- Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
5 - Smt. Hemlata W/o Shri Parmanand Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Podi (Rachha), Tahsil- Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Bhaskar S/o Shri Parmanand Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Podi (Rachha), Tahsil- Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Mukesh S/o Shri Parmanand Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Podi (Rachha), Tahsil- Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Chandrashekhar S/o Shri Parmanand Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Podi (Rachha), Tahsil- Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 9 - Ramshankar Yadav S/o Shri Itwari Yadav Aged About 59 Years R/o Janjgir, Near Bamleshwari Petrol Pump, Janjgir, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) (Defendant No. 3) 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The District Collector Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) (Defendant No. 4) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer 2 (Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge) Order on Board 30/01/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning legality and sustainability of the order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2024 by Additional District Judge, Janjgir, Distt. - Janjgir – Champa (C.G.), wherein application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. filed by plaintiff was allowed, restraining defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 to interfere with the possession of plaintiff over suit property. 2. Learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants have purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 16.01.2023. After purchase of land, they took possession of the land and also got land demarcated. It is contention of learned counsel for appellants that on the date of demarcation appellants were in possession of the land, however, subsequently they were dispossessed and therefore appellants filed an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred as “the Code of 1959”) before the Tahsildar and during pendency of the said proceedings, civil suit was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. Learned trial Court has committed error in not considering entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that after purchase of the land, possession of appellants was found by Revenue Officers at the time of demarcation of the suit property and they were subsequently dispossessed and therefore, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 ought to have been rejected. 3. Learned State counsel supports impugned order. 4. 5. 3 I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the memo of appeal. Perusal of the plaint would show that respondents / plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration of title pleading therein that they have purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 21.03.1994 and 24.02.1991 and since the date of purchase of property, they were in possession. It is also contention that they came in possession in part of suit property bearing Khasra No. 4211/6 and 4211/7 since 25.02.2006. Defendants are property dealer and after purchase of land, stated to have been purchased in the year 16.01.2023, started interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiffs. Demarcation report which was prepared by defendants was erroneous. After purchase of the land, defendants have demolished boundary wall of the precast cement plate and are trying to evict plaintiffs from suit property. Defendants have submitted written statement denying pleading made in the plaint and in reply to the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, it is pleaded that it is plaintiffs who have forcefully erected boundary wall of precast cement plates and further that Revenue Department, after evicting plaintiffs, has handed over possession to defendants No. 1 and 2. it is further pleaded that it is plaintiffs who have forcefully evicted defendants and there is no possession of plaintiffs over suit property. 6. From pleadings made in the plaint, application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 as also the written statement and reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. it is appearing that plaintiffs purchased the suit property in the year 1991 and 2006 and since then, they are in possession. Defendants purchased suit property only in the month of January, 2023 and thereafter, the dispute arose. It is also not in dispute 4 that defendants have already filed an application under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 which shows that defendants were not in possession and have initiated proceedings for taking possession of property based on demarcation report. Said demarcation report has been pleaded in the plaint to be not conducted in accordance with law. 7. Since there is a dispute of possession of suit property and from the impugned order it is appearing that defendants were not in possession of the suit property and have filed an application under Section 250 of the Code of 1959. Plaintiffs are claiming their rights based on sale deed of the year 1991 and possession since long, learned trial Court has considered relevant factors necessary for deciding application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and Irreparable loss and after considering, has arrived at a conclusion that all the three factors are in favour of plaintiffs. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 117 has held thus: “16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved 5 certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.” 9. Considering aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. 10. Appeal being sans merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI Shayna Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE