1 2025:CGHC:11730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 218 of 2025 1 - Smt. Gurucharan Kaur W/o Late Shri Samsher Singh Aged About 75 Years R/o C M-2581 Sukhila, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, Through Power Of Attorney Gurminder Singh Saini S/o Gurubaksh Singh Saini Aged About 46 Years R/o 005, Rohini Villa, Beside Jagannath Temple, Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Appellant/plaintiffs) 2 - Jaswinder Singh S/o Late Shri Samsher Singh Aged About 47 Years (Through Legal Representatives) R/o C M-2581 Sukhila, Indore, Madhya Pradesh Through Power Of Attorney Gurminder Singh Saini S/o Gurubaksh Singh Saini Aged About 46 Years R/o 005, Rohini Villa, Beside Jagannath Temple, Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2.1 - (A) Gurjeet Singh Basant S/o Late Jaswinder Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o 14/d/b Slice-2, 202 Pancham Arket Scheme No. 78 Vijay Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, R/o C M-2581 Sukhila, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, Through Power Of Attorney Gurminder Singh Saini S/o Gurubaksh Singh Saini Aged About 46 Years R/o 005, Rohini Villa, Beside Jagannath Temple, Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2.2 - (B) Gurtej Singh Basant S/o Late Jaswinder Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o C M-2581 Sukhila, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, Through Power Of Attorney Gurminder Singh Saini S/o Gurubaksh Singh Saini Aged About 46 Years R/o 005, Rohini Villa, Beside Jagannath Temple, Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Hardeep Kaur S/o Late Samsher Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o C M- 2581 Sukhila, Indore, Madhya Pradesh Through Power Of Attorney Gurminder Singh Saini S/o Gurubaksh Singh Saini Aged About 46 Years R/o 005, Rohini Villa, Beside Jagannath Temple, Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Surendar Kaur W/o Shri Sadhusingh Aged About 53 Years R/o 50, C.H.D. Nyay Nagar, Vijay Nagar, Indore M.P. Through Power Of Attorney Gurminder Singh Saini S/o Gurubaksh Singh Saini Aged About 46 Years R/o 005, Rohini Villa, Beside Jagannath Temple, Priyadarshini Nagar, SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Sapna Gupte Alias Sukhwinder Kaur W/o Nachiket Gupte Aged About 51 Years R/o 178 Sector 1, Mahalaxmi Nagar, Near Bombay Hospital, Indore M.P. Through Power Of Attorney Gurminder Singh Saini S/o Gurubaksh Singh Saini Aged About 46 Years R/o 005, Rohini Villa, Beside Jagannath Temple, Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Kuljeet Kaur W/o Kamaljeet Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o B-75, Vallabh Palace, Shivdham Khandva Road, Indore M.P. Through Power Of Attorney Gurminder Singh Saini S/o Gurubaksh Singh Saini Aged About 46 Years R/o 005, Rohini Villa, Beside Jagannath Temple, Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Avinash Mishra S/o Shri R.S. Mishra Aged About 53 Years R/o Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondents Before The Appellate Court/ Defendants) 2 - Sunita Shukla D/o Late Shri Chinta Prasad Shukla Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. 44, Navjiwan Society, Pachpedi Naka, Tikrapara District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Mehtaru Ram S/o Late Shri Budhram Baghel Aged About 70 Years R/o Gram Nawagaon, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Asha Panjwani W/o Shri Bhagwan Das Panjwani Aged About 54 Years R/o Shribaba Golaram Nagar, Devpuri, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Shanti Ekka W/o Pascal Ekka Aged About 61 Years R/o House No. 129, Block No. D, Vijeta Complex New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Rinki Sahu W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Kashiram Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) Present Address- Near Chair Factory, Devpuri, Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Poonam Vyas W/o Radheshyam Vyas Aged About 44 Years R/o Near Gokul Chandrama Temple, Budhapara, District Raipur (C.G.) 8 - Vikas Jhamnani S/o Laxman Das Jhamnani Aged About 43 Years R/o Vishal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 9 - Laxman Das Jhamnani S/o Harbaksh Rai Jhamnani Aged About 68 Years R/o Vishal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 10 - Madhu Sahu W/o Shyam Sahu Aged About 49 Years Presently R/o 3 Near Chair Factory, Devpuri, Raipur (C.G.) 11 - Radheshyam Vyas S/o Gopal Prasad Vyas Aged About 46 Years R/o Near Gokul Chandrama Temple, Budhapara, District Raipur (C.G.) 12 - Jatin Kumar Lakhisrani S/o Gaurishankar Lakhisrani Aged About 31 Years R/o Plot No. 107, Balaji Homes, Vishal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 13 - Lucky Goplani S/o Vishnu Goplani Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 105 D, Gali No. 28, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 14 - Annpurna Devi Patle W/o Sukhchand Patle R/o Arvind Dixit Ward, Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Amlidih, Ravigram District Raipur (C.G.) 15 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur (C.G.) 16 - Gurdeep Singh S/o Nehal Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) 17 - Guruveg Singh S/o Nehal Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) 18 - Amarjeet Singh S/o Nehal Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) 19 - Baljeet Kaur D/o Nehal Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) 20 - Balwinder Kaur D/o Nehal Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) 21 - Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Nehal Singh Aged About 76 Years R/o Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) 22 - Gurucharan Singh S/o Arjun Singh Aged About 63 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 23 - Amardeep Singh S/o Arjun Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 24 - Ravindra Singh S/o Arjun Singh Aged About 59 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 25 - Charanjeet Kaur D/o Arjun Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 26 - Rampyari W/o Arjun Singh Aged About 84 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 27 - Surjeet Singh S/o Babu Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Punjabi -4- Colony, Katora Talab, District Raipur (C.G.) 28 - Barinder Kaur S/o Babu Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Punjabi Colony, Katora Talab, District Raipur (C.G.) 29 - Jaswinder Singh S/o Babu Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Punjabi Colony, Katora Talab, District Raipur (C.G.) 30 - Dalbir Kaur W/o Babu Singh Aged About 71 Years R/o Punjabi Colony, Katora Talab, District Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.03.2025 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this petition against the order passed by the learned Seventh District Judge Raipur, District Raipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No.24 of 2022 dated 27.9.2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit property. They specifically sought relief to declare that they are the joint owners of the property bearing Survey Nos. 61/2 admeasuring 0.258 hectares and 44/3 admeasuring 0.049 hectares, situated at Village Devpuri, Patwari Halka No.114, Raipur, District Raipur. The plaintiffs and defendants No.15 to 30 purchased Survey Nos. 48/4, 48/5, 49/2, 61/2, 61/3, 61/4 & 44/3 admeasuring 2.254 hectares, situated at Village Devpuri, Raipur. On 4.4.2015, the plaintiffs executed a power of attorney in favour of Guruminder Singh Saini to represent them in all the Courts in relation to the suit 5 property. Defendant No.1 got a fake power of attorney executed in his favour on 22.3.1996 by substituting his own name instead of the name of Yogesh Mishra and executed various sale deeds in favour of defendants No. 2, 3 and 5 to 14. It is also pleaded that the power of attorney was never executed in favour of defendant No.1 and by playing fraud, the power of attorney was executed and pursuant to it, sale-deeds were executed. 3. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was also moved, which was rejected by the learned trial Court. In the application, the plaintiffs have made a prayer to restrain defendants No.1 to 6 and 8 to 14 from creating a third-party interest. The application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 4.7.2022. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of CPC and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27.9.2024 on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the ingredients for a temporary injunction in their favour. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the only prayer sought in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was to restrain defendants No.1 to 6 and 8 to 14 from creating a third party interest. He would further submit that during the pendency of the civil suit, the defendants may further alienate the suit property, which would cause immense hardship to the plaintiffs and also lead to a multiplicity of suits. He would pray to set aside the orders passed by the Courts below. -6- 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. In paragraph 23 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have categorically stated that the suit property is in possession of the defendants and that a legal notice was sent to hand over the possession of the suit property within a period of one month. The averments made in the plaint would clearly establish that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. 8. In the present case, the suit property was alienated by defendant No.1 by virtue of a power of attorney in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 to 14 through a registered sale-deed. The possession was also handed over to those defendants. The petitioners/plaintiffs must prove the fact that the power of attorney is a forged document and this fact cannot be ascertained without recording the evidence of the parties. The purchasers of the property have the legal right to enjoy the property, which includes alienation of the property until and unless the plaintiffs prove all three ingredients:- (i) Prima facie case; (ii) Balance of convenience and irreparable loss; and (iii) An order of temporary injunction can be granted in their favour. 9. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under:- 7 “52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.— During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force. 10. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 prevents the transfer of immovable property during the pendency of a suit and this provision is known as the doctrine of lis pendens. If the defendants create any third party interest during the pendency of the civil suit, the law of lis pendens would apply. There is a concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below and the petitioners have utterly failed to prove the ingredients for the grant of a temporary injunction, therefore, no case is made out for interference. 11.Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi