1 2025:CGHC:6401 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 414 of 2023  Pankaj Gupta S/o Shri Parmeshwar Gupta Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Bhogahapara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil-Nawagarh, District - Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Rahul Sultaniya S/o Ashok Sultaniya Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Mahantpara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil - Nawagarh District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 2. Ayush Agrawal S/o Late Lakheshwar Prasad Mittal Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Mahantpara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil - Nawagarh District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 3. Kundan Prasad Shrivas S/o Late Sewak Prasad Shrivas Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Mahantpara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil - Nawagarh District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 4. Dankeshwar @ Damodar Shrivas S/o Late Sewak Prasad Shrivas Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Mahantpara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil - Nawagarh District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 5. Laxmikant Narnoliya S/o Vishnu Prassad Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Mahantpara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil - Nawagarh District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 6. Manoj Sharma S/o Gopikrishna Sharma Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Mahantpara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil - Nawagarh District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2, 5 & 6 : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04. 02.2025 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the Civil Judge, Class – II, Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa dated 13.02.2023 in Civil Suit No. 2A of 2021, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed for the extension of the benefit of the order dated 25.09.2021, wherein the application for temporary injunction was allowed for a period of 6 months. 2. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to survey No. 623/6 admeasuring 0.040 hectare situated at Ward No. 15, Village Bhoghapara, Patwari Circle No. 23, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction along with the plaint. The application was allowed and an order of temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff for a period of six months. An appeal was preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the said order by defendants No. 1 and 2 and that was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2022. 4. The plaintiff moved an application before the learned trial Court for the extension of the order of temporary injunction after the expiry of six months, but that application was rejected by the impugned order dated 13.02.2023 on the ground that the plaintiff failed to cooperate in the early disposal of the Civil Suit which was a condition mentioned in the order granting temporary injunction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that an appeal was 3 preferred against the order of temporary injunction and the record was called by the learned appellate Court. He would further submit that as the record was not available; the proceeding of the Civil Suit could not proceed further. He would also submit that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff. It is contended that this Court vide order dated 10.05.2023 had granted the order of status quo till the next date of hearing, which is still operating. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Gaurav Singhal, counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 2, 5 and 6 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kesharwani. He would submit that temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff with a condition that he would cooperate in the early disposal of the Civil Suit and when the Civil Court noticed the fact that the plaintiff/petitioner himself has adopted delaying practice; the order of temporary injunction was vacated. He would further submit that the petitioner is still not cooperating in the progress of the Civil Suit. 7. Mr. K.K. Dewangan, counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 & 4 and Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 7 would support the contention made by Mr. Singhal. 8. Initially, the order of temporary injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff for a period of six months and an application moved by the petitioner for the extension of the order of temporary injunction was rejected vide order dated 13.02.2023. This Court vide order dated 10.05.2023 granted the order of status quo in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. As informed by the parties, the Civil Suit is set for the plaintiff’s evidence before the learned trial Court. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that initially, the order of temporary injunction was granted and the order of status quo is operating in favour of 4 the petitioner; the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 13.02.2023 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. The parties are directed to maintain the status quo till the final disposal of the Civil Suit. 10. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings of the Civil Suit expeditiously and the parties are directed to cooperate in the early disposal of the Civil Suit. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant