1 2025:CGHC:7816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 161 of 2024 1 - Rajkumar S/o Antaryami Aged About 75 Years By Caste - Aghariya, R/o Village-Keshripur Nawagaon, Tahsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Surendra Kumar S/o Rajkumar Aged About 51 Years By Caste - Aghariya, R/o Village-Keshripur Nawagaon, Tahsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mahendra Kumar S/o Rajkumar, Aged About 48 Years By Caste - Aghariya, R/o Village-Keshripur Nawagaon, Tahsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus Mohd. Imran S/o Shri F.R. Khan, Aged About 30 Years Caste - Muslim, R/o Baijnathpara, Police Station - City Kotwali, Tahsil And Ditstrict - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ayush Lal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 13-02-2025 Heard. 1. This misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth, CPC) has been preferred by the appellants / plaintiffs challenging order dated 13.11.2024 passed by Second District 2 Judge, Mahasamund in Civil Suit No. H-04/2021 whereby application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC for grant of temporary injunction has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, is that appellants/plaintiffs have instituted civil suit for declaration of two sale-deeds executed by Kamla & Vimla, who were daughters of Madhu Patel (original owner of the disputed land) on 30.07.2015 and third sale-deed executed by Bhagirathi on 28.09.2015, who has obtained respective suit property on the basis of Will executed by Rudnawatii (wife of Madhu Patel), as null & void. Appellants/plaintiffs are husband & sons of late Sushila Bai, who was also a daughter of late Madhu Patel. After execution of aforesaid sale-deeds executed by Kamla, Vimla & Bhagirathi in the year 2015 in respect of disputed land, appellants/plaintiffs filed instant civil suit for declaration of nullity of said sale-deeds and by filing application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, they have also sought temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of alienation of suit property. 3. Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that Late Madhu Patel is original owner of the suit property, who died in the year 1991 and after his death, his wife – Rudnawati had also died in the year 2002. It is contended that after death of Madhu Patel, his daughter late Sushila Bai was in possession over the suit land alongwith her mother Rudnawati, therefore, sister of Sushila Bai namely, Kamla & Vimla and their mother Rudnawati filed civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 119-A/98 before First Civil Judge, Class -II, Mahasamund, in which, decree of partition was granted in 3 their favour and they were held entitled to get share 1/4th each of the suit property. After getting such decree, they have executed registered sale deed in favour of respondents/defendants, whereas, they are not in physical possession over the suit property, as such, respondents/defendants are also not in physical possession over the suit property. He further submits that the respondent/defendant is trying to alienate the suit property, whereas appellants/plaintiffs are in possession over it. But on the strength of registered sale-deed executed by Kamla, Vimla & Bhagirathi, respondent/defendant is trying to alienate the suit property to 3rd persons, therefore, he submits that application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC may be allowed and stay may be granted against respondent in respect of non-creation of 3rd party interest over the suit property, which has wrongly been denied by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.11.2024. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would submit that the defendant has purchased disputed land vide registered sale-deed from its true owner. It is submitted that respondent/defendant is in physical possession over the suit property, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, which does not call for any interference in the instant appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. When specific question was posed to counsel for the respondent/defendant that whether respondent/defendant is going to 4 create 3rd party interest over the suit property by alienating the same, then he submits that respondent/defendant is not going to sell or alienate suit property. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant further extended his undertaking that he will not create any 3rd party interest over the suit property or alienate the same till disposal of the civil suit. 7. Having considered aforesaid undertaking given by counsel for the respondent/defendant, I do not feel inclined to go into merits of the case and this misc. appeal is disposed of directing respondents/defendants not to create third party interest or alienate the suit property, till disposal of the civil suit No. H-04/2021. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt / submission of copy of this order, which shall be submitted by counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs before the trial Court. 8. It is made clear that both the parties shall cooperate with the trial court for expeditious disposal of the trial and if it is found that appellants/plaintiffs are causing unnecessary delay, then respondent/defendant may approach to this Court seeking reconsideration of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the misc. appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.18 16:53:42 +0530 5