1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 385 of 2021 1 - Shravan Kumar S/o Shri Rajlal, Aged About 44 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Chonga, Police Station Chandani, Tehsil Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh................(Defendant No. 1 In The Suit), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna, S/o Shravan Kumar, Aged About 20 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Chonga, Police Station Chandani, Tehsil Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh................(Defendant No. 2 In The Suit), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pawan, S/o Shravan Kumar, Aged About 18 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Chonga, Police Station Chandani, Tehsil Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh................(Defendant No. 3 In The Suit), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Umadevi W/o Shravan Kumar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chonga, Police Station Chandani, Tehsil Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh................(Defendant No. 4 In The Suit), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Gaibinath Sahu S/o Late Shri Janakdhari Sahu, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Advocacy, R/o Villager- Chonga, Police Station Chandani, Tehsil Odagi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh..............(Plaintiff In The Suit), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh................(Defendant No. 5 In The Suit), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For respondent No.1/Plaintiff : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For State/respondent No.2 : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed this petition against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.05/2021 dated -2- 01.07.2021, whereby, an appeal preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC was allowed and temporary injunction was granted in his favour. 3. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 before the learned Trial Court pertaining to seven plots total admeasuring 1.580 hectare situated at Village Chonga, Tehsil Odagi, District Surajpur, interlia, on the ground that the property is the ancestral property and the petitioner/defendant No.1 is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and application for temporary injunction was also moved. Mr. Dubey would submit that the application moved by the plaintiff was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 17.03.2021. Mr. Dubey would submit that miscellaneous appeal was preferred by the plaintiff and an order of temporary injunction was passed against the defendants. Mr. Dubey would further submit that over the part of the suit property, house of the petitioner is situated for the last 10 years and it is evident from spot inspection report. He would contend that this Court vide order dated 12.08.2021 has granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dubey. He would submit that the plaintiff is the owner of the property, whereas, defendant No.1 made attempt to encroach over his property, therefore, a civil suit was filed along with an application for temporary injunction which was rejected by the learned Trial Court but allowed by the learned Appellate Court. He would further submit that the petitioner 3 has no right to retain any part of the suit property in absence of any title. He would contend that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the order passed by the learned Court below. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. An application for temporary injunction was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff which was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 17.03.2021 and an appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC was allowed in his favour. As informed by the parties, the suit is fixed for plaintiff’s evidence before the learned Trial Court. An order of status quo was passed in favour of the petitioner/defendant No.1 by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2021. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the civil suit is set for plaintiff’s evidence and an interim order is operating in favour of the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to make all endevours to conclude the proceedings of civil suit preferably within a period of six months from today and interim order of status quo granted in this petition shall continue till disposal of the suit. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha