1 2025:CGHC:2670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 12 of 2025 1. Juthan Ram Rajwade S/o Jaypaal Rajwade Aged About 65 Years Caste Rajwar Occupation Agriculture R/o Village - Jogibandh Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 2. Rambai W/o Juthan Ram Rajwade Aged About 60 Years Caste Rajwar Occupation Agriculture R/o Village - Jogibandh Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 3. Anil Bai D/o Juthan Ram Rajwade Aged About 26 Years Caste Rajwar Occupation Agriculture R/o Village - Jogibandh Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 4. Anju Bai D/o Juthan Ram Rajwade Aged About 23 Years Caste Rajwar Occupation Agriculture R/o Village - Jogibandh Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Jamuna Prasad Rajwade S/o Juthan Ram Rajwade Aged About 33 Years Usnound Mind Through Amicus Curiae (Separate Application Has Been Filed For Appointment R/o Jogibandh Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 2. Lalan Rajwade S/o Dharmpal Rajwade Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Labji (Jamtipara) P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 3. Ghansyam Das Agrawal S/o Tekchand Agrawal Aged About 59 Years R/o Brahm Road P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 4. Devendra Kumar Rajwade S/o Shivpal Rajwade Aged About 31 Years Caste Rajwar R/o Village Majhapara Tahsil Darima District - Surguja (C.G.) 5. Abhishek Agariya S/o Ramu Agariya Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Poksari Tahsil Btauli District - Surguja (C.G.) 6. Jitan Ram S/o Ramphal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bhitthikala Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 2 7. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District - Collector District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16/01/2025 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this petition challenging the order passed by the learned IIIrd District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) passed in Misc Civil Appeal No. 19-A/2024 dated 07.11.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected and the order passed by the learned IInd Civil Judge, Junior Grade, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 86-A/2023 dated 13.08.2024 has been affirmed. 2. Plaintiff No. 1 is the father of defendant No. 1; plaintiff No. 2 is the mother of defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 are sisters of defendant No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit property mentioned in Schedule-D(1) has been alienated by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants No. 3 and 4 through a registered sale-deed dated 15.09.2021. He further submits that defendant No. 1 is mentally unfit and taking benefit of his mental status, defendants No. 3 and 4 got executed a sale-deed pertaining to Khasra Nos. mentioned in Schedule-D(1) in their favor on 15.09.2021. He contends that defendants No. 3 and 4 moved an application before the Tehsildar, Ambikapur for mutation and that proceeding is going on, therefore, an 3 application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was moved making a prayer for stay on the revenue proceedings. He further contends that the application moved by the plaintiffs was rejected by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred against that order has also been dismissed. He argues that it is a well-settled principle of law that civil Courts have no jurisdiction over the revenue Courts. He prays that respondents No. 3 and 4 may be restrained from creating third party interest till the final disposal of the civil suit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 opposes. She submits that respondents No. 3 and 4 are bona-fide purchasers and they have the right over the suit property described in Schedule-D(1). She contends that the application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 has rightly been rejected by the Courts below. 5. Learned State counsel submits that there is a dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction over revenue Courts, therefore, the application moved by the plaintiffs was rejected by the trial Court. Further considering the fact that if the suit property mentioned in Schedule-D(1) is further alienated by defendants No. 3 and 4, it would cause a multiplicity of cases, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, defendants No. 3 and 4 should be restrained from creating a third party interest. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of directing respondents No. 3 and 4 to not create a third party interest pertaining 4 to the suit property described in Schedule-D(1) till the final disposal of the civil suit. The trial Court is also directed to conclude the proceedings of the pending civil suit expeditiously. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya