1 2025:CGHC:46502 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 905 of 2025  Narad Ram Sahu S/o Late Ramratan Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Rampur, P.H. No. 06, R.N. Mandal Tumdibod Tah. Dongergaon, District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Smt. Chanda Bai Jain W/o Prakash Chandra Jain Aged About 62 Years R/o Aazad Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tah. And District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). Through- Power Of Attorney Holder Ritesh Jain S/o Prakash Chand Jain, Aged 43 Years, R/o Aazad Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tah. And District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). 2. Smt Sonal Jain W/o Ritesh Jain Aged About 40 Years R/o Aazad Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tah. And District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). Through- Power Of Attorney Holder Ritesh Jain S/o Prakash Chand Jain, Aged 43 Years, R/o Aazad Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tah. And District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). 3. Smt. Chanchal Jain W/o Niulesh Jain Aged About 36 Years R/o Aazad Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tah. And District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). Through- Power Of Attorney Holder Ritesh Jain S/o Prakash Chand Jain, Aged 43 Years, R/o Aazad Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tah. And District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). 4. Mathuradin Sahu S/o Late Ramratan Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Rampur, P.H. No. 06, R. N. Mandal Tumdibod, Tah. Dongergaon, District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). 5. Keshav Sahu S/o Mathuradin Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Rampur, P.H. No. 06, R. N. Mandal Tumdibod, Tah. Dongergaon, District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). 6. Manharan Sahu S/o Mathuradin Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Rampur, P.H. No. 06, R. N. Mandal Tumdibod, Tah. Dongergaon, District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). 7. Vedprakash Sahu S/o Mathuradin Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Rampur, P.H. No. 06, R. N. Mandal Tumdibod, Tah. Dongergaon, District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). 8. Agni Bai D/o Late Ramratan Sahu, R/o Rampur, P.S.- Lalbag, Tah.- Dongergaon, Distt- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). 9. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.16 19:09:47 +0530 2 For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11. 09.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by Principal District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil MJC No. 49/2024, whereby an application moved by respondents No. 1 to 3 under Section 24 of CPC has been allowed and Civil Suit No. 15A/2021 pending before the learned Third District Judge, Rajnandgaon has been transferred to the Court of First District Judge, Rajnandgaon where Civil MJC No. 25/2024 is pending consideration. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a suit was filed by the Mathuradin Sahu, Keshav Sahu, Manharan and Ved Prakash against the petitioner for declaration of title, mutation, partition and possession of the suit property. The Civil Suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.2024 by the learned Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge Class II, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 25 A/2018. He would further submit that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said judgment, (bearing registration No. Civil MJC No. 25/2024) which is pending consideration before the learned First District Judge, Rajnandgaon. He would contend that subsequently respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of contract which was pending before the Court of learned Third District Judge, Rajnandgaon bearing Civil Suit No. 15 A/2021. He would further contend that respondents No. 1 to 3 moved an application under Section 24 of CPC for transfer of Civil Suit No. 15 A/2021 from the Court of learned Third District Judge, Rajnandgaon to Court of First District Judge, Rajnandgaon where Civil MJC No. 25/2024 is pending and said application has been allowed by the learned Principal Judge, Rajnandgaon. 3 He would further contend that the Civil Suit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 is at initial stage, whereas, Civil appeal has ripen for final disposal; therefore, the learned Court below committed an error of law by allowing application moved under Section 24 of CPC. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate would support the order passed by the learned Court below. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Perusal of the documents and the order impugned would reveal that the suit property are same in Civil Appeal as well as in Civil Suit. The learned Principal District Judge, Rajnandgaon transferred both the cases to one Court to avoid situation of conflicting judgments. The reasons assigned by the learned Court below appears to be reasonable, and thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Court below. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the learned First District Judge, Rajnandgaon is directed to expedite the proceedings of the pending Civil Suit. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant