1 2025:CGHC:12028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 214 of 2025  Rahul Soni S/o Shankar Prasad Soni Aged About 29 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 03) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Shyam Narayan Pandey S/o Late Ramkripal Pandey Aged About 55 Years R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff No. 1) 2. Shankar Prasad Soni S/o Late Mathura Ram Soni Aged About 61 Years Caste - Sonar, R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 01) 3. Smt. Shanti Soni W/o Shankar Prasad Soni Aged About 56 Years Caste - Sonar, R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 02) 4. Smt. Poonam Nagdev W/o Ashok Kumar Nagdev Aged About 50 Years R/o Shivam Palace In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 04) 5. Sudhir Kumar Pandey S/o Late Deendayal Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Suguja, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff No. 2) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Non-Applicant No. 1 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocte Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.12 18:22:02 +0530 2 Order on Board 11. 03.2025 1. By way of the instant MCC, the applicant has sought for modification in para 5 of the order dated 30.01.2025, passed in WP227 No. 110 of 2025 by this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that in para 5 of the order dated 30.01.2025, this Court has observed that “defendants No. 1 to 3 are directed that they shall not raise any construction till the disposal of Civil Suit .” She would further submit that there is dispute only over 311 sq. feet of the suit land. She would further submit that in para 5 of the order dated 30.01.2025, “suit land” may be inserted. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No. 1 would oppose. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that there is dispute with regard to 311 sq. feet of the suit land; therefore, the order dated 30.01.2025, passed in WP227 No. 110 of 2025 is hereby modified and paragraph 5 shall be read as under :- “5. Admittedly, the construction can be raised after the disposal of the Civil Suit and defendants No. 1 to 3 taking the benefit of the vacating order of stay have started raising construction, therefore, defendants No. 1 to 3 are directed that they shall not raise any construction over the suit land till the disposal of Civil Suit.” 5. It is made clear that rest of the contents of the original order [ WP227 No. 110 of 2025 dated 30.01.2025 ] shall remain intact. 6. With this modification(s), the instant MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant