1 2025:CGHC:48862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 927 of 2025 1 - Keshav Prasad Vishwakarma S/o Late Ram Prasad Vishwakarma Aged About 58 Years R/o Jagmal Chowk, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vishnu Prasad Vishwakarma S/o Late Ram Prasad Vishwakarma Aged About 73 Years R/o House No. Fd/4, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Seeta Vishwakarma W/o Devi Prasad Vishwakarma Aged About 63 Years R/o Yadunandan Nagar, Bazaar Chowk, Near Dinesh Store, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Lata Vishwakarma W/o Manohar Vishwakarma Aged About 53 Years R/o Gorakpur Chowk, Opposite Sharda Talkies, Jabalpur (M.P.) 4 - Smt. Suman Alias Baby Vishwakarma W/o Late Deepak Vishwakarma Aged About 43 Years R/o Om Nagar Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.26 18:51:01 +0530 2 Order on Board 23/09/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 28.07.2025 Annexure P-1 passed by the 4th District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.34/2022 and also against the order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by 7th Civil Judge Class- II, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) in Civil Suit No. A/99/2022. 3. Facts of the case, which emerge from the writ petition, are that a civil suit for declaration of title and a permanent injunction was filed by respondent No.1/ plaintiff against the present petitioner/ defendant and respondents No.2 to 5/ defendants seeking a relief of declaration that a suit property comprised in piece of Khasra No.715/7 Rakba 0.016 Hectare situated at village Torwa, Bilaspur P. H. No. Old 22/34, 35 New 37 RIC Tahsil & District Bilaspur is the ancestral property. In pursuance to the mutation order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Tahsildar and order dated 25.09.2012 and 26.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur the respondent No.1/plaintiff has mutated his name in revenue records, therefore, the same may be declared null and void. He also seeks to declare a mutation order in his favour. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC seeking a relief that defendant be restrained from selling the suit property till disposal of the suit. The said application was allowed and temporary injunction was granted. Thereafter an appeal have been preferred against the said order under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC before the learned 4th District Judge, Bilaspur which was dismissed vide its order dated 28.07.2025 affirming the order of Civil Judge. By this petition the petitioner is challenging both the orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have passed the impugned orders superficially without assessing the material available on record. He submits that the petitioner and other defendants are in possession of suit property and the respondent No.1/ plaintiff does not have any right over the suit property 3 despite that temporary injunction was granted, therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant No.1. 6. Perusal of the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by Civil Judge indicates that only a temporary injunction was granted until the disposal of the suit, prohibiting the defendant from selling the disputed property. The suit was filed for a declaration of title to the property. The order of the Civil Judge was also affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, there are two findings of fact against the appellant. The learned Civil Judge has only granted a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and the other defendants from selling the suit property. The suit property, if sold during pendency of the suit, would create third-party rights and lead to a multiplicity of suits. 7. Considering the facts stated above, this Court is not inclined to admit this writ petition, as it does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul