1 2025:CGHC:21265 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 493 of 2021 1. Muleshwar S/o Shri Hagra Aged About 60 Years Caste Nagesiya R/o Village- Kantabel Tehsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ........Plaintiff 2. Budhnath S/o Hagra Aged About 55 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Kantabel Tehsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. .........Plaintiff 3. Vifna S/o Hagra Aged About 50 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Kantabel Tehsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ........Plaintiff ... Petitioners Versus 1. Dhuran S/o Choyo Aged About 60 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Dherku S/o Choyo Aged About 55 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Dhanmani S/o Aitwa Aged About 55 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Budhan S/o Letangu Aged About 35 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 5. Chhulu S/o Letangu Aged About 30 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 6. Feku S/o Meghu Aged About 32 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 7. Sukhram S/o Meghu Aged About 30 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 8. Balram S/o Jeetu Aged About 55 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 9. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners/Plaintiffs/ Appellants : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No. 9 For Other Respondents : : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer None, though served Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08/05/2025 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession with regard to land bearing Survey No. 21 admeasuring 14.555 acres situated at Village Kantabel, P.H. No. 10, Revenue Circle Manora, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur (C.G.) and it was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017. He would contend that the petitioners preferred a regular appeal before the learned Court below. He would contend that an application under Section 151 of CPC was moved by defendants No. 2 and 8 before the learned Appellate Court seeking relief of stay of the revenue proceedings pending before the Tahsildar, Manora and to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said application was allowed vide order dated 19.7.2021. He would also contend that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings of the Revenue Courts and further, the appeal was filed by plaintiffs/petitioners therefore the application moved by the defendants for temporary injunction was not maintainable. 2. On the other hand, Mr. Prateek Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.9 would oppose. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 4. Indisputably, the petitioners preferred a civil suit for declaration of title and possession and it was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017. They preferred a regular appeal before the learned Court 3 below. Defendant No. 2 and others moved an application seeking stay of the further proceedings of the revenue court and for the grant of temporary injunction. The learned Appellate Court allowed the application moved under Section 151 of CPC and restrained the petitioners from interfering with the possession. 5. Admittedly, the civil suit filed by petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed by trial court. They preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree. Defendant No. 2 and others moved an application under Section 151 of CPC and sought relief of temporary injunction and the same was allowed by the learned Appellate Court. The application moved by the defendants for the grant of temporary injunction was not maintainable for the reasons - (i) the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed on merits and there was no executable decree against the defendants, and (ii) the application for temporary injunction cannot be moved by the defendants. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and accordingly the same is set aside. The learned Appellate Court is directed to expedite the proceedings of the pending appeal, if already not concluded. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti