NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 873 of 2024 1 - Neeraj Sharma S/o Natthulal Ji Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kumari Namita Sharma D/o Late Manohar Lal Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Chourasiya Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.),...(Defendants) 2 - Mohammad Shakiruddin S/o Late Shri Moinuddin Aged About 61 Years R/o Shiv Nagar, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), Manohar Lal Sharma (Since Died), Smt. Shakun Bai (Since Died) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate alongwith Ms. Anushaka Sharma, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Akash Kundu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned IXth District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.146/2024 whereby an application moved by the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC was rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that a civil suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration, injunction and recovery. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.2 also filed the written statement and counter claim seeking declaration that he is the owner of the suit property. Learned Trial Court vide judgment and -2- decree dated 05.09.2024 dismissed the suit preferred by the plaintiff and decreed the counter claim of defendant No.2 and decree of injunction was passed against the petitioner/plaintiff. Against the said judgment and decree, a regular appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge by the petitioner himself and in that proceeding, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC was moved, which was rejected by the said Court vide order dated 18.09.2024. 3. Mr. Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the learned Court below ought to have allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC moved by the petitioner/plaintiff. 4. On the other hand, the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Paranjpe. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. A suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, it was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2024 Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment and decree and an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC was moved. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner in this petition and the appeal is fixed for final arguments before the learned Appellate Court, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 18.09.2024. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 8. The interim order granted earlier shall continue till 19th of July, 2025. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha