1 2025:CGHC:826-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 886 of 2024 Akhilesh Vaishnav S/o Late Churamani Das Vaishnav Aged About 51 Years R/o- Ward No. 5 Bhoipara Kurud, Tahsil And Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) Mo. No. 9425247837 ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Religious Trust And Dharmswa, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Tahsil and District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 4. Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Kurud, Tahsil- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 5. Tahsildar Kurud, District- Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) 6. Chief Municipalities OfÏcer Nagar Panchayat Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.07 17:57:31 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 5847 of 2024 (Akhilesh Vaishnav vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge dismiss the application for stay preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner on the ground that Hon’ble Apex Court stay the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in SA No. 693 of 2015. 3. The prayers made in the writ petition reads as follows: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/1), is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by 3 respondent No. 3 (Annexure P/2), is in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 4. Learned State counsel submits that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for short, ‘Act of 2006’), which specifically provides that no appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order. 5. Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006 reads as follows: “2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a Judgment or order of one judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction. - (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one judge of the High Court in exercise of original Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of the same High Court. Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 4 6. A perusal of the above would go to show that no appeal shall lie before the Division Bench against an interlocutory order. 7. In that view of the matter, this appeal is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan