Subhash Chand Soni v. Roopchand

4 - Maalti Soni W/o Shri Purushottam Soni Aged About 69 Years R/o Near Hari Jewelers, Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 5 - Manik Chand S/o Late Shri Ghasiram Urf Kunjilal Sonar Aged About 65 Years R/o Print Idea, Near Jarhabhata Mandir, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Sevtibai W/o Shri Toman Lal Soni R/o Brahman Para, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 7 - Praveen Soni S/o Late Gulab Chand Soni Aged About 43 Years R/o Zorapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 8 - Kalpana Soni D/o Late Gulab Chand Soni Aged About 54 Years R/o Zorapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 9 - Kavita Soni D/o Late Gulab Chand Soni Aged About 42 Years R/o Zorapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 10 - Kamini Soni D/o Late Gulab Chand Soni Aged About 38 Years R/o Zorapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 11 - Shantilata Soni W/o Late Gulab Chand Soni Aged About 63 Years R/o Zorapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 12 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For State : : Shri Sunil Verma, Advocate. Shri Sidhant Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board

19.08.2026

The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated

14.05.2026 passed by IInd District Judge, Janjgir in Misc. Civil Appeal No.24-A/2024 whereby the Misc. Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa in Civil Suit No.48-A/2019 has been affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defendant No.2 before the trial court where the present respondent No.5 Manikchand and father of respondents No.7 to 11 namely Gulab Chand Soni were the plaintiffs who were prosecuting the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property shown in Schedule-A&B. After death of the father of plaintiffs, the defendant No.5 fraudulently and with the collusion of the revenue authorities, got his name mutated in the revenue records and tried to dispossess them from the suit land. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 of CPC for temporary 3 injunction which was decided vide order dated 28.08.2021 by the trial court and the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs have been rejected holding that the plaintiffs had no prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour.. Thereafter, the defendant No.5 also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction claiming that he is in possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs as well as other defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit land.

He would further submit that the petitioner/defendant No.2 is in actual physical possession of the suit land by virtue of family partition arrived at between the parties and he is cultivating his part of the land. If the defendants are not being restrained from interfering in his possession over the suit land, he would be in irreparable loss. Therefore, till the final adjudication of the suit, the other defendants and plaintiffs may be restrained by a temporary injunction from interfering in the peaceful possession of the defendant No.2 over the suit land Khasra No.190 Area 0.80 Dismil.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

From perusal of documents annexed with the petition, it transpires that the petitioner has filed three orders passed by the trial court deciding the applications for grant of temporary injunction filed by the either parties. The first order is dated 28.08.2021 passed by the trial court on an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC by which the application has been rejected. The second order dated

21.12.2022 has been passed by the trial court by which the application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC filed by the defendant No.5 has been 5 rejected and the third order dated 12.09.2024 has been passed by the trial court on an application filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC. In all these applications the respective parties are claiming their own possession over the suit property or part of the suit property. The trial court rejected all these applications holding that no prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss could be established by the parties concerned in support of their case as there are various facts which are to be established during trial with respect to respective claims of the parties. The trial court has also considered the orders passed by the revenue authorities. The execution of sale deed by Ghasi Ram is also under cloud as to whether he was having right or title to execute the sale deed or not? Further, the claim of the petitioner/defendant No.2 also requires proof by evidence that he obtained the suit property of Khasra No.190 Area 0.80 dismil in family partition as there is no any deed of partition or any other documents regarding the same and only on the basis of pleadings made in the plaint the right and title could not be decided and thereby rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The rejection of application filed by the defendant No.2/petitioner has been affirmed by the appellate court by the impugned order dated 14.05.2026. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, rejection of all these applications filed by the respective parties it clearly transpires that there exist a composite factual dispute between the parties which requires examination of witnesses on their respective claims. The claim of the defendant No.2/petitioner has been concurrently decided by the trail court as well as appellate court by observing that he has no any document of family 6 partition and no any revenue record that it was allotted to him in any transaction and except the pleading there is no other document. Therefore, this court is also unable to accept the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that if other defendants or plaintiffs would not be restrained from interfering with the possession, he would be in irreparable loss.

In case of Shalini Shyam Setty & Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010(8)SCC329, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “40. Same principles have been followed by this Court in Mani Nariman Daruwala v. Phiroz N. Bhatena1 , wherein it has been held that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or tribunal has come to. This Court made it clear that except to this "limited extent" the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact (see SCC pp. 149- 50, para 18). In coming to the above finding, this Court relied on its previous decision rendered in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram2. The decision in Chandavarkar is based on the principle of the Constitution Bench judgments in Waryam Singh3 and Nagendra Nath4 discussed above. 41. To the same effect is the judgment rendered in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi5. In SCC para 9 at pp. 579-80 of the Report, this Court clearly reminded the High Court that under Article 227 that it cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. 42. Same views have been taken by this Court in respect of the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227 in Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi6 (AIR pp. 222-34, para 5 of the Report) and the decision of this Court in Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre v. Pathankhan7. The Constitution Bench ratio in Waryam Singh8 about the scope of Article 227 was again followed in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand9.