1 2025:CGHC:1704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 1167 of 2024 • Dilip Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chilhatikala Tahsil Dondi Lohara District - Balod Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Bank Of India Suregaon Branch Tehsil Dondilohara District Balod (C.G.) (Defendent No. 1) 2. Chief Secretary Chhattisgarh Government Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) (Defendent No. 2 ) 3. Naib Tehsildar Marribangala Deori Tehsil Dondilohara District - Balod (C.G.) (Defendent No. 3 ) 4. Smt. Mithila Alias Kajal W/o Omprakash Singhare R/o Koba P.H. No. 21 Tehsil Dondilohara District - Balod (C.G.) (Defendent No. 4 ) 5. B.B. Panchbhoy S/o Budhram Age 58 Years Naib Tehsildar Sub Tehsil Marribangla (Deori) District - Durg (C.G) Current Posting Additional Collector Durg District - Durg (C.G.) Presently Posted As Upper Collector Durg District - Durg (C.G.) (Defendent No. 5) 6. Durga Prasad S/o Devi Prasad Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Dubachera Tehsil And Police Station Dondilohara District - Balod Current Address Village Kumhar Para Nevaibhatha Bhilai Post Purai Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) (Defendent No. 6 ) 7. Smt. Umeshwari Sahu W/o Lavan Kumar Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Ramnagar Muktidham Bhilai Ward No. 14 Post Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Defendent No. 7 8. Ram Kumar Sahu Former Patwari R/o Halka No. 21 Village Dubchera Tehsil Dondilohara District - Balod Current Posting Revenue Inspector Address Dhamtari Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Defendent No.8 ) 9. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector (Former Durg District) Current District - Balod (C.G.) (Defendent No. 9 ) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/01/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the Learned District Judge Balod, District Balod, (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 07/2022 in the interest of justice and allow the application of the petitioner filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be call entire record of the case. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the auction proceedings and subsequent sale deed are null and void. She would further submit that an application was moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC before the learned trial Court but the same was rejected vide order dated 15.07.2022. She would contend that a miscellaneous civil appeal was preferred but the same was also dismissed on 24.08.2024. She would also submit that respondent No. 7/defendant No. 7 may alienate the property, therefore, the order of status quo may be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents would submit that the suit property was auctioned in the year 2001 and at present, the suit property is in possession of defendant No. 7. They would contend that as the petitioner/plaintiff is not in possession, no order of temporary injunction can be passed in his favour. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the auction proceeding was completed in the year 2001 against the petitioner and at present respondent No. 7 is in possession of the suit property, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by the plaintiff for temporary injunction and the learned lower appellate Court was justified in affirming the order. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 6. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti