Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 163 of 2024 1 - Amrika Bai D/o Late Santram, W/o Ramji Aged About 78 Years R/o Sarvan Devri, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kanti Bai D/o Late Santram, W/o Laxman Aged About 70 Years R/o Kolihabhatha, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bhagwati Bai D/o Late Santram, W/o Kalika Prasad Aged About 68 Years R/o Singhari, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Uttam Bai D/o Late Santram, W/o Shri Vedram Aged About 62 Years R/o Ochhinapara, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ramratan S/o Late Mantram Aged About 59 Years R/o Ochhinapara, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shyamratan S/o Late Mantram Aged About 56 Years R/o Ochhinapara, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Motiram S/o Late Hetram Aged About 74 Years R/o Ochhinapara, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellants 1 - Ajay S/o Late Kamta Prasad Aged About 64 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinod S/o Kamta Prasad Aged About 59 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anita W/o Arun Aged About 55 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Pramod S/o Kamta Prasad Aged About 61 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Akanksha S/o Arun Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Seema D/o Arun Aged About 32 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Rohani W/o Vijay Aged About 60 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Premprakash S/o Vijay Aged About 43 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Suryaprakash S/o Vijay Aged About 38 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Priyanka W/o Jaiprakash Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhedimuda, Ratanpur, Tahsil Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 11 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For State
Legal Reasoning
three parameters i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and Irreparable loss. As appellants could not able to place on record copy 4 of revenue entries either before trial Court or before this Court to support pleadings made by applicants that since 1954 – 55, name of ancestors of appellants is recorded in revenue record, learned trial Court came to conclusion that appellants / plaintiffs failed to make out prima facie case in their favour and while considering pleadings made that property subject matter of dispute is ancestral property, partition of which was also taken place in the year 1975 between defendants and they are in possession, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is also not found in favour of plaintiff. 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 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 5 normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.” 9. In case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus : “6. An interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is passed only in circumstances which are clear and the prima facie materials clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interests of justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory injunction. Keeping this principle in mind, it is necessary to see whether in the case on hand, the Additional District Judge was justified in passing the interim order of injunction.” 10. 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. 11. Appeal being sans merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Shayna Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE
Arguments
: Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate : Ms. Mandwi Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer 2 (Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge) Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging legality and sustainability of the order dated 19.09.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 182-A/2021 by Second District Judge, Bilaspur whereby the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. came to be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants / plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground pleaded therein along with the said application has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 seeking relief of temporary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the possession of the appellants / plaintiffs of the suit property. It is contention of learned counsel for appellants that suit property was purchased through registered sale deed dated 31.08.1952 from Nandlal and since the date of purchase of land, they are in possession of the suit property. Land bearing khasra No. 5872/2 ‘[k’ was purchased by Santram and Mantram ancestors of appellants on 27.05.1947 through unregistered sale deed from Baishakhu and Mahettar and since the date of purchase of land i.e. 27.05.1947, they are in possession of land and doing agricultural activities over the said property. After purchase of the aforementioned land, name of ancestors of appellants were recorded in revenue record of the year 1954 – 55 and is still there. Defendants have got their name mutated in revenue records of the property in dispute in connivance with the revenue officials and thereafter filed proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 which is pending. It is further contention of learned counsel 3. 4. 5. 3 for appellant that objection was raised which was erroneously dismissed, the revision filed also came to be dismissed and thereafter civil suit was filed as it will adversely going to affect title of appellants / plaintiffs. Learned trial Court fail to consider documents placed along with application i.e. copy of sale deed executed in favour of ancestors of appellants, hence, impugned order be interdicted. Learned State counsel supports impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents placed on record. Perusal of the impugned order would show that learned trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that to substantiate pleadings made in application under Section 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. that name of ancestors of appellants have been recorded in revenue record have not placed documents like revenue entries, further that sale deed dated 27.05.1947 is an unregistered sale deed and according to value of land mentioned, property could not have been transferred by unregistered sale deed and registration of document transferring the property is mandatorily required to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. 6. During course of the argument, when Court posed question to learned counsel for appellants whether along with this appeal, document showing revenue entries of land subject matter of suit is filed or not, he fairly submits that no such document is filed along with the appeal. He however submits that copy of unregistered sale deed is placed on record. 7. Application for grant of temporary injunction is to be considered on