1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 430 of 2023 1 - Vishambhar Gond S/o Late Mangal Gond Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jaampalli, Phn 12, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Hira Ram Gond S/o Late Mangal Gond Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Jaampalli, Phn 12, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Hirau Gond S/o Late Mangal Gond Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Jaampalli, Phn 12, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Pilau Gond S/o Late Mangal Gond Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Jaampalli, Phn 12, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Pili Bai Gond Wd/o Late Mangal Gond, R/o Village Jaampalli, Phn 12, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Uttam Kumar Diwan S/o Shri Gaindu Ram Diwan Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Jaampali, Phn 12, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Tijuram Diwan S/o Shri Gaindu Ram Diwan Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jaampali, Phn 12, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Panchbai Diwan W/o Shri Gaindu Ram Diwan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jaampali, Phn 12, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Gangotri Diwan D/o Shri Gaindu Ram Diwan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jaampali, Phn 12, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioners : Shri Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 to 4 : Shri Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) Order Dated 06.03.2023, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. Н-11/2022 which has been arising out of the order passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Mahasamund (C.G.) Order dated 12.09.2022, passed in Civil Suit No. 62-A/2021. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Mahasamund (C.G.) Order dated 12.09.2022, passed in Civil Suit No. 62-A/2021. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2. Respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction pertaining to lands bearing Survey Nos. 248/1, admeasuring 0.1970 hectares and 248/3, admeasuring 0.1168 hectares, situated at Village Jaampali, PHN 12, Revenue Circle Patewa, Tehsil & District Mahasamund (adjacent to National Highway 53). An application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was also moved and was allowed by the learned trial Court. An appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC was preferred by defendants No.1 to 5, which 3 was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2022. Against the said order, this petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that the plaintiffs filed a suit claiming relief of possession, which implies that they were not in possession. Therefore, the application moved under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 was not maintainable, yet it was allowed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. He would submit that interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 12.5.2023. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that during the pendency of the civil suit, the defendants made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiffs and the relief of possession was claimed as an alternative relief. He would contend that both Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the petitioners and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the State would support the orders passed by the Courts below. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking relief of possession and a permanent injunction. It appears that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property; hence, they sought possession. Despite that, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was moved and was allowed by the learned Courts below, ignoring the fact 4 that the suit was for possession. This Court vide order dated 12.5.2023, granted interim relief in favour of the petitioners. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the parties are directed to maintain the status-quo with regard to the possession till the disposal of the civil suit and the learned trial Court is directed to decide the pending civil suit expeditiously. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi