2025:JHHC:34404 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1064 of 2025 1. Vijay kant Pandey, aged about 60 years 2. Binay kant Pandey, aged about 70 years Both sons of late Kameshwar Pandey, Both residents of Bishunpur, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, Dist. Latehar-829206 (Jharkhand) 3. Mina Devi @ Mina Kuar aged about 63 years, wife of late Sanjay Kant Pandey 4. Animesh Kumar Pandey aged about 28 years 5. Manish Pandey aged about 26 years Petitioners 4 and 5 sons of late Sajay Kant Pandey 6. Barmati Kuar aged about 92 years w/o late Kameshwar Pandey 7. Dropati Devi, aged about 81 years, wife of late Phaneshwar Pandey 8. Santosh Kumar Pandey, aged about 48 years 9. Shailendra Kumar Pandey, aged about 43 years, both sons of late Phaneshwar Pandey All residents of village Bishupur, PO, PS and district Latehar ..... .... Petitioners Versus The state of Jharkhand represented through the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, P.O, PS and district-Latehar, Jharkhand … …. Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate ------ Order No. 05 / Dated : 18.11.2025. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and are aggrieved by the order passed in Original Suit No. 23/2017 by which the prayer for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been dismissed by the Trial Court and affirmed in appeal by the Principal District Judge, Latehar. 2. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration of title with respect to the land situated in Village Kinamarh, District Latehar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequently an amendment was allowed in favour of the plaintiff for incorporating the recovery of possession in the relief portion of the plaint. 3. The petition for temporary injunction has been rejected, inter alia, on the ground that a hospital is under construction by the State Government on the schedule property and, therefore, balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiff seeking relief of temporary injunction. 2025:JHHC:34404 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by construction of hospital, the nature of land will be changed. 5. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials on record, it is manifest that a public project is under construction on the suit property over which the State claims title. Further, a temporary injunction petition is not maintainable in view of Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, it restricts civil courts from entertaining disputes related to infrastructure projects, mandating such cases be transferred to designated special courts. The section emphasizes the statutory framework that limits the jurisdiction of regular civil courts over certain infrastructure-related disputes, ensuring expeditious and specialized adjudication. 7. Under circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 8. Any construction made over the suit property during pendency of the suit will be subject to the final outcome of the case. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ - Uploaded 19.11.2025