1 2025:CGHC:36570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 701 of 2025  Bahal Ram Sahu S/o Manbodhi Sahu Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Kurrubhath, Tahsil - Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Piyush Bramhankar S/o Ramesh Bramhankar Aged About 32 Years R/o Budhwari Para, Dongargarh, Tahsil - Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/plaintiff : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For State/respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28. 07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No. 03/2025, dated 03.07.2025, whereby an appeal preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to survey No. 114/2 admeasuring 0.2430 hectares situated at Village Kurubhath, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, inter alia, on the ground that the property was purchased in the year 2017 from Vipat and Pitam through a SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.01 10:18:48 +0530 2 registered sale-deed and defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 also purchased a plot from Vipat and Pitam, which is adjacent to the plot of the petitioner/plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement and counter claim wherein it was pleaded that he purchased the property bearing survey No. 114/3 through a registered sale deed dated 19.03.2019, and is in peaceful possession. Demarcation was conducted on 09.12.2023, and a report was submitted on 15.02.2023, wherein it was found that one Vivek Agrawal has encroached over 0.02 hectare of land, and 0.08 hectare of land has been encroached over by the plaintiff/petitioner. An application under Section 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “Code, 1959”) was also moved, which was allowed. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was moved by defendant No. 1 along with a counter claim, and it was allowed vide order dated 07.05.2025, and against the said order, a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC was moved. 3. The learned appellate Court recorded a finding that the demarcation was conducted wherein encroachment was found and the application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, was also allowed in favour of defendant No. 1, and thus, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 4. Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff, would argue that though there is an allegation that the plaintiff/petitioner has encroached over an area of 0.08 hectare, the order of temporary injunction has been passed pertaining to the entire survey No. 114/3, which is not permissible. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the learned Court below. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that a demarcation was conducted wherein encroachment of the plaintiff was found over 0.08 hectare out of 3 0.235 hectares of survey No. 114/3 and the application moved by defendant No. 1 under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, was also allowed; in my opinion, the learned Courts below have not committed any error of law while allowing the application for temporary injunction moved by defendant No. 1 along with counter claim. 7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant