1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 479 of 2021 1 - Mahesh Ram Uraon S/o Shri Dashrath Uraon Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Chitkakani, Post Jurda, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Gram Panchayat Judra Through The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Jurda, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Jai Prakash Pradhan S/o Nepal Pradhan Aged About 30 Years Occupation Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jurda, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Pushpendra Kumar Raj Nayab Tehsildar, Tahsil Office, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No.4/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 16/09/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Judge, Raigarh in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 05/2021 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 10:26:09 +0530 2 Order 43 Rule 1 (r) was rejected and order dated 22.03.2021 (Anenxure P-2) passed by the Court of Third Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh passed in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2021 whereby application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff was dismissed is affirmed. Parties are referred to their status before the learned Trial Court. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff also file an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction of restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. The said application stood dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 22.03.2021 and thereafter, the same was affirmed by the learned District Judge in the Misc. Appeal filed by the petitioner. There are two concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner and both the Courts below did not find the three material ingredients to grant injunction in favour of the petitioner i.e. Prima facie case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss, this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not inclined to disturbed the categorical finding of fact which does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the records. 3. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. Looking to pendency of the case, it is excepted that the learned trial Court would expedite the trial. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan