1 2025:CGHC:49529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5174 of 2025 Bharat S/o Noharu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Pendri Talab, Tahsil Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tahsildar Lalpur Thana, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gangaram S/o Mahettar Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Pendri Talab B, Tahsil Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Ganga Bai D/o Late Mahettar Aged About 68 Years R/o Tarbahar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. 5 - Smt. Suruj Bai D/o Late Mahettar Aged About 61 Years R/o Devgarhiya, Tahsil Pandariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Anjor Bai D/o Late Mahettar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Thana, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 7 - Umend S/o Pillu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Khaira, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Satrughan S/o Noharu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Pendri Talab B, Tahsil Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 9 - Balram S/o Noharu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Pendri Talab B, Tahsil Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 10 - Devendra S/o Noharu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Pendri Talab B, Tahsil Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.10.06 17:53:19 +0530 2 11 - Ku. Ishwari D/o Noharu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Pendri Talab B, Tahsil Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 12 - Pramila D/o Noharu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Pendri Talab B, Tahsil Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 13 - Gokul D/o Noharu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Pendri Talab B, Tahsil Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 14 - Deva S/o Noharu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Pendri Talab B, Tahsil Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 15 - Smt. Anupa Bai W/o Pyarelal Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Pendri Talab B, Tahsil Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 06.10.2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s) : “10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to issue a writ/order/directions to quash/set-aside the order dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure P/1), complete revenue proceedings (Annexure P/2), online Namantran Panji (Annexure P/3), in the interest of justice. 10.2 To, maintain status-quo & not to dispossess the petitioner & respondent no. 7-15, til the decision of the application under order 41 rule 5 CPC, pending before the Ld. Principal District Judge, Mungeli in Civil Appeal No. 18A/2025, in the interest of justice. 3 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 in Revenue Case No. 20250725190007/A-6/2024-25 as well as the complete revenue proceedings (Annexure P/2) and mutation of the names of respondents No. 3 to 6 in the online Namantran Panji (Annexure P/3) in revenue records with respect to suit property Khasra No. 212, area 0.10 acre situated at Village Pendri Talab, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) without considering the reply and ignoring the fact that the petitioner has filed a Civil Appeal registered as Civil Appeal No. 18A/2025 with respect to the suit property along with the application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. which is pending before the Principal District Judge, Mungeli (C.G.). He further contended that the execution proceeding before the Tahsildar is not maintainable under the law because civil appeal has already been filed by the petitioner and application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. for stay is pending before the concerned Principal District Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the State-respondent contended that this petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has already availed alternate remedy before the competent Appellate Court 4 and has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. for stay of the execution proceedings. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the grievances raised by the petitioner and submissions made by the respective parties, it is crystal clear from record that against the judgment passed by the Civil Judge, the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the competent Appellate Court and also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which is still pending before the Appellate Court. In view of the above, the petitioner has already availed the alternate remedy available to him, therefore, this petition is not maintainable at this stage. The petitioner is directed to pursue the matter before the concerned Appellate Court. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Bhumika