1 2025:CGHC:17816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 347 of 2025 1 - Laxman S/o Thakur Ram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ayodhya S/o Lakhanlal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rashi D/o Lakhanlal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bholaram S/o Lakhanlal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 4 - Agarsai S/o Late Mahettar Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sagun D/o Late Dhanendra Prasad Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 6 - Punaram S/o Late Dhanendra Prasad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 7 - Heeralal S/o Late Dhanendra Prasad Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 8 - Mohitram S/o Late Dhanendra Prasad Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 9 - Sohit S/o Late Dhanendra Prasad Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 10 - Radheshyam S/o Late Baratram Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 11 - Choturam S/o Late Baratram Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Parsadakala, Tahsil And District Sakti Chhattisgarh. 12 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 12 : Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 21-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner/ plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) dated 07.01.2025 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15/2024 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 15.04.2024 has been affirmed. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with additional relief to declare the sale-deed dated 25.04.1969 null and void. Petitioner pleaded that the suit property was recorded in the name of Thakur Ram S/o Nohar Sai Patel and during his lifetime, he remained in possession. It is further pleaded that a forged sale-deed was executed and application for mutation has been moved before the Tehsildar, Sakti on 25.08.2023. Petitioner moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction but the learned trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 15.04.2024. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Appeal and same has been dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2025 affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No. 1 to 11/ defendants moved application for mutation on the basis of a forged 3 sale-deed before the Tehsildar, Sakti after 45 years. He further submits that petitioner is in possession of the suit property, therefore the ingredients of temporary injunction which are prima-facie case; balance of convenience and ; irreparable injury are in favor of the petitioner. He also submits that the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court committed error of law in rejecting the applications. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6) It is pertinent to mention here that there is concurrent finding recorded by the learned Courts to the effect that suit property was alienated through registered sale-deed in favor of Baratram on 25.04.1969. Admittedly, application for mutation was moved on 25.08.2023 but it could not be established that petitioner is in possession of the suit property. The learned Courts further held that respondents No. 1 to 11 are in possession of the suit property, therefore, the application for temporary injunction was rejected. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned dated 07.01.2025 and 15.04.2024. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 8) However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the proceeding. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.04.22 10:14:08 +0530