1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 544 of 2023 1 - Uday Singh S/o Late Rameshwar Singh Aged About 65 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Village- Devipur, Police Station And Tahsil- Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Lol Prasad Singh S/o Sheetal Ram Singh Aged About 50 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Village- Nareshpur, Police Station And Tahsil- Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Motilal S/o Late Rameshwar Singh Aged About 54 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Village- Devipur, Police Station And Tahsil- Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anil Singh S/o Late Brijlal Aged About 35 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Village- Devipur, Police Station And Tahsil- Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kiran D/o Late Brijlal Aged About 40 Years W/o Santosh Singh, Caste- Gond, R/o Village- Ketka, Police Station And Tahsil- Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner/plaintiff : Mr. R.V. R. Rajwade, Advocate For Respondents : None appears. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.1/2023 dated 14.06.2023 whereby, REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court on the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC was affirmed. 2. Mr. Rajwade, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition, declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants pertaining to Survey No.96 & 97 admeasuring area 0.501 & 0.259 hectares situated at Village Maanpur, Tehsil and District Surajpur. He would further submit that the suit property was purchased in the joint names of the petitioner, respondent No.2 and the father of respondent No.3 & 4 namely, Brijlal. He would also submit that after oral partition, co-sharers got their share in the suit property and thereafter, respondent No.2 executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. He would contend that respondent No.1 moved an application for mutation and a notice was issued by the Tehsildar, then the petitioner came to know about the execution of the sale deed. He would also submit that the learned Courts below committed an error of law while rejecting the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. He would state that a prayer was made by the plaintiff/petitioner to restrain respondent No.1 from further alienating the suit property. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff at length and perused the documents placed on the record. 4. A sale deed was executed by respondent No.2, who was the 3 owner of his share, in favour of respondent No.1 on 18.01.2022. Respondent No.1 became the owner of the property by virtue of the sale deed. Therefore, he moved an application for mutation. As respondent No.1 became the owner of the property, which he purchased through a sale deed, he cannot be restrained from alienating the said property and therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff for temporary injunction. The learned Appellate Court has also not committed any error of law while affirming the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. 5. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Courts below. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, taking into consideration the fact that the suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 2022, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings. 6. All pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha