1 2025:CGHC:16250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 498 of 2021 1. Bihari Lal Rajput S/o Late Rewachand Rajput Aged About 50 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Kaserpara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh............ (Defendant No.1) 2. Smt. Aasha Rajput W/o Bihari Lal Rajput Aged About 45 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Kaserpara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh............ (Defendant No. 2) ... Petitioners Versus 1. Chetan Rajput S/o Late Rewachand Rajput Aged About 55 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Near Stadium, Boridadar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh........... (Plaintiff) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh........... (Defendant No. 3) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 2/State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. The petitioners/defendants have challenged the order passed by the learned District Judge, Raigarh in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 05/2020, dated 22.02.2021, whereby the appeal preferred by them under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been dismissed and the order passed by the Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 330-A/2019 dated 15.01.2020 has been affirmed. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for declaration of title with respect to the suit property mentioned in Schedule – B on the strength of a compromise agreement dated 14.02.2012. The plaintiff further sought a relief of declaration to the effect that the will deed dated 20.01.2017 is null and void and also sought relief of prohibitory injunction. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was moved and that was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.01.2020. The petitioners/defendants No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants No. 1 and 2 would submit that the learned Courts below committed an error of law while allowing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It is also argued that by the strength of the compromise deed entered into between the parties, title cannot be conferred on the plaintiff. She would further submit that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property but the order of temporary injunction was passed in his favour. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 2 would oppose. He would submit that the case is at the evidence stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the learned Courts below; the case is set for evidence of the parties and the Courts below found the plaintiff in possession of the 3 suit property, in the opinion of this Court, no is made out for interference with the orders passed by the Courts below. 7. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti