1 2025:CGHC:29678 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 583 of 2025  Mahesh Kumar Guruwani S/o Late Mohan Lal Guruwani Aged About 59 Years R/o Tirthani Gali, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff In The Suit) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Suresh Guruwani S/o Late Mohan Lal Guruwani Aged About 63 Years R/o Tirthani Gali, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1 In The Suit) 2. Rajesh Kumar Guruwani S/o Late Mohan Lal Guruwani Aged About 56 Years R/o Tirthani Gali, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2 In The Suit) 3. Anita Bajaj W/o Shri Sushil Bajaj Aged About 53 Years R/o Behind Sindhi Dharmashala, 5 Civil Lines, Sagar District - Sagar Madhya Pradesh (Defendant No. 3 In The Suit) 4. Chandrapal Guruwani S/o Late Mohan Lal Guruwani Aged About 50 Years R/o Tirthani Gali, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 4 In The Suit) 5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 5 In The Suit) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02. 07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Xth District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent/defendant No. 1 under Order 43 Rule 1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.07 17:05:22 +0530 2 (r) of CPC was allowed. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 79 A/2020 for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with an application for interim injunction. The learned trial Court partly allowed the said application vide order dated 05.10.2020 and its validity was extended till the final disposal of the suit. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC and the same was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.09.2021. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against the order dated 17.09.2021 and the same has been allowed by the learned Xth District Judge, Bilaspur C.G. vide its order dated 09.05.2025, against the said order, the instant petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff/petitioner is in possession of the suit property and running a pulse mill. He would further submit that the learned trial Court had passed a well reasoned order in his favor but the learned appellate Court has committed an error of law in setting aside the order dated 17.09.2021. He would pray to allow the instant petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would support the order passed by the learned appellate Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Initially, an order of temporary injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner, later on, it was modified and its validity was extended till the final disposal of the suit. An application under Section 151 of CPC was moved by defendant No.1/respondent No. 1 before the learned trial Court which was rejected vide order dated 17.09.2021 and against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the learned Court below. 3 7. The learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and remitted back the matter to the learned trial Court to decide the application for temporary injunction afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The learned Court below has recorded a categorical finding that defendant No. 1 was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing, when application for temporary injunction was allowed. The learned Court below has not decided the application moved by the plaintiff for temporary injunction finally rather remitted back the matter to the trial court to decide it afresh, therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition, and is accordingly dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant