1 2025:CGHC:50438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 985 of 2023 1 - Sanjay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Trijuginarayan Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o House No 88, Avrethi Para, Near New Bus Stand, Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Mo. No. 9827166533 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Animesh Agrawal S/o Late Awadh Bihari Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandralata Agrawal W/o Late Awadh Bihari Agrawal Aged About 67 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Shyama Agrawal W/o - Late Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Niharika D/o- Late Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 16 Years Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Shyama Agrawal, W/o - Late Rajesh Agrawal, R/o Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Naman Agrawal S/o Late Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 8 Years Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Shyama Agrawal, W/o - Late Rajesh Agrawal, R/o Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Pranadhar Agrawal S/o Late Atmanand Agrawal Aged About 72 Years (Now 74 Years), R/o Agrawal Para Arang, Tahsil- Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Kartik Agrawal S/o Shri Rajeev Agrawal Aged About 7 Years Through Next Friend Father Shri Rajeev Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal, R/o Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 8 - Vartika Agrawal D/o Shri Rajeev Agrawal Aged About 10 Years Through Next Friend Father Shri Rajeev Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal, R/o Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 9 - Lipika Agrawal D/o Shri Rajeev Agrawal Aged About 12 Years Through Next Friend Father Shri Rajeev Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years, S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal, R/o Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.10.14 11:06:12 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh 10 - Bhavya Agrawal D/o Sanjay Bihari Agrawal Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Next Friend Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years, S/o- Late Rambihari Agrawal, R/o Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 11 - Sanjay Agrawal S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 12 - Rajeev Agrawal S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 13 - Sandeep Agrawal S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Rest House, Shankar Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 14 - Smt. Pratibha Agrawal D/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 47 Years W/o Shri Rajkumar Agrawal, R/o Near Rest House, Rajim, Tahsil- Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 15 - Smt. Pratima Agrawal D/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 45 Years W/o - Shri Ajay Agrawal, R/o - Baniyapara Purani Basti Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 16 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari on behalf of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 7 to 12 Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent No. 16 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. GA Other respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 09.10.2025 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara (CG) (for short “learned ADJ’) in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 358/2023, whereby the petitioner’s 3 application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) seeking leave to file an appeal was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil suit pertaining to the property comprised in Khasra No. 201/02, area 8.747 hectares, situated at Village Pendri, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara, and Khasra No. 70/01, area 4.753 hectares, situated at Village Kaithi, PH No. 2, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara, was filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs against respondents Nos. 6 to 15/defendants. The said suit was filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and declaration that the will deed as null and void, along with a prayer for possession of the suit property. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was also filed. The petitioner herein is admittedly not a party to the said civil suit, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 03-A/2022. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhatapara, vide order dated 17.07.2023, allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and observed that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 /plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and that their possession shall not be interfered with by respondents Nos. 6 to 11/defendants. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the suit property originally belonged to one Late Awadh Bihari Agrawal, who was the husband of respondent No. 2/plaintiff No. 2, the father of respondent Nos. 1 and 3/plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3, and the grandfather of respondent Nos. 4 and 5/plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5. It is submitted that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 never resided with Late Awadh Bihari Agrawal and were living separately. Late Awadh Bihari Agrawal subsequently married Smt. Pramila Agrawal, who lived with him until his death. After his demise, the suit property came into successorship of Pramila Agrawal. 4 5. It is further submitted that Pramila Agrawal executed an agreement with the petitioner, permitting him to cultivate the suit property for a period of five years. The petitioner accordingly cultivated the said land. Upon the death of Pramila Agrawal, she left behind a will bequeathing the suit property in favour of her brother, Prandhar Agrawal respondent No. 6/defendant No. 1, who also entered into an agreement with the petitioner allowing continued cultivation of the land. 6. The dispute regarding the suit property thereafter arose between the plaintiffs and defendants, leading to the filing of the civil suit and the grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel submits that, on the strength of the said cultivation agreements, the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. However, taking advantage of the injunction order passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs, they have started disturbing the petitioner’s possession. Upon learning of the injunction order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC along with an application under Section 151 CPC seeking leave to appeal before the learned ADJ, Bhatapara. By the impugned order, the said application was rejected, thereby leaving the petitioner remediless. It is submitted that, being in lawful possession and having invested substantial amounts in cultivation, denial of leave to appeal would cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal as provided under the CPC. 7. Per contra, Mr. Abhinav Tiwari and Mr. Roop Ram Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondents/plaintiffs and defendants, oppose the submissions and submit that the dispute is purely an inter se family dispute among the legal heirs of Late Awadh Bihari Agrawal. The petitioner, being a stranger to the family, has no right, title, or possession over the suit property. They contend that permitting him to appeal would disturb the family’s possession over the property. However, they submit that if the petitioner’s alleged possession is interfered with, he may avail of 5 the appropriate civil remedy by filing an independent suit. Thus, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the appellate court in rejecting the petitioner’s application. 8. Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 16/State, submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature between the private parties, and the State has no role to play in the matter. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 10.From the submissions and materials placed on record, it is evident that respondents Nos. 1 to 15 are family members of Late Awadh Bihari Agrawal, each asserting rights over the suit property, including possession. The petitioner has placed certain documents, including Annexure P/4, to show that he was in possession of the property under a cultivation agreement. This Court, at this stage, does not deem it appropriate to enter into the disputed question of possession between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 15. The limited question for consideration is whether, when the petitioner claims possession and asserts that the injunction order affects his rights, the appellate court could have granted him leave to challenge the same. 11. Considering the overall facts and the material available on record, and particularly the fact that the petitioner was not a party to the suit but claims to be affected by the injunction order, this Court is of the considered view that the appellate court ought to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case against the injunction order. 12.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned ADJ, is set aside. As a consequence, the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal preferred by the petitioner shall stand revived to its original number. The application under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner for leave to appeal is 6 allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate court on 27th November, 2025, and the appellate court is expected to decide the matter expeditiously and within a reasonable period. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.ANSARI