1 2025:CGHC:6370 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1109 of 2024 1. Smt. Sonadai W/o Late Mahesh Aged About 64 Years (Father Name Wrongly Mentioned In The Records Of Courts Below), R/o Village-Banskot, P.S.- Vishrampuri, Tehsil-Bade Rajpur, District-Kondagaon (C.G.) ------- (Plaintiff Before Ld. Trial Court) 2. Saraswati D/o Late Mahesh, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village-Banskot, P.S.-Vishrampuri, Tehsil- Bade Rajpur, District-Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. President, Gayatri Temple Banskot, Tehsil- Bade Rajpur (Vishrampuri), District-Kondagaon (C.G.) -------(Defendant Before Ld. Trial Court) 2. Smt. Shyama Sahu W/o Rajesh Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Banskot, P.S.-Vishrampuri, Tehsil-Bade Rajpur, District-Kondagaon (C.G.) 3. Rajesh Sahu S/o Amritlal Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Banskot, P.S. Vishrampuri, Tehsil - Bade Rajpur, District Kondagaon C.G. 4. State Of C.G., Through- Collector, Kondagaon, District-Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04. 02.2025 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order passed in MJC Civil Appeal No. 01/2022 dated 26.10.2024 passed by the District Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, whereby the appeal preferred by 2 defendants No. 1 to 3 under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 of CPC was allowed, has been set aside. 2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession against defendants No. 1 to 3 for restraining them to carry out the construction over the suit land admeasuring 13.38 acres recorded in names of the petitioners/plaintiffs. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was also moved along with the plaint. 3. Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed a reply to the said application and denied that the suit land and the land of defendants No. 1 to 3 are different and no construction is being raised over the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs. Both the parties produced the revenue records to establish their right. 4. The learned trial Court vide order dated 26.02.2022 allowed the application and restrained defendants No. 1 to 3 from raising further construction inter alia on the ground that the construction is being raised over the suit land. An appeal was preferred against the said order and the learned first appellate Court vide impugned order dated 26.10.2024 set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court on the ground that defendants No. 1 to 3 would suffer irreparable loss if they were restrained from raising construction. It is also held that survey No. 468/1 admeasuring 0.60 hectare does not belong to the plaintiffs, the same is not their ancestral property and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard is erroneous. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that defendants No. 1 to 3 are raising construction over the suit land which is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. He would further submit that the revenue records from 1952- 3 53, 1977-78 and the subsequent years would show that the plaintiffs are the owners and titleholders of the suit property. He would also submit that defendants No. 1 to 3 have placed on record the revenue documents pertaining to survey No. 468/22, which is part of the suit property and construction is being raised over that land. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Paranjpe. He would submit that defendants No. 1 to 3 are raising construction over survey No. 468/1 and the plaintiffs failed to produce any document to demonstrate that the construction was being raised over survey No. 468/22; therefore, the learned appellate Court rightly allowed the appeal preferred by defendants No. 1 to 3 and set-aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. 7. Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the order passed by the learned first appellate Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. Admittedly, the petitioners are titleholders and owners of survey No. 416/19 and 468/22. The Gayatri Mandir premises are situated over survey No. 421/1. The revenue documents were placed before the learned trial Court to demonstrate these facts. Survey No. 421/1 is forest land ( बड़े झाड़ का जंगल). The plaintiffs produced a map of the “Baskot” area and according to it; Gayatri Mandir is not situated over survey No. 421/1. Earlier an order of status quo was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer against defendants No. 1 to 3. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the land and the boundary marks are also not clear and as 4 alleged by the plaintiffs, the construction is being raised over survey no. 468/22 and the defendants could not produce documents before the learned Court below to establish the fact that they were raising construction over survey No. 421/1 which is the exclusive property of defendants No. 1 to 3 or Gayatri Mandir; in the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court committed an error of law while setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order passed by the learned first appellate Court dated 26.10.2024 is hereby set-aside. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. The parties are directed to maintain the status quo till the final disposal of the Civil Suit. 12. The learned trial Court is directed to make all endeavours to conclude the proceedings of the pending Civil Suit expeditiously. D Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant