1 2025:CGHC:1909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 35 of 2025  Chinmoy Builders Through Director Shri Chinmoy Davara S/o Shri Prakash Davara Aged About 41 Years R/o A-1 Pushpak Appartment, Chotapara Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Smt. Sita Bai W/o Late Shri Pyare Lal Dimar (Dead) Through Lrs - 1.1 - Shri Shiv Kumar Dimar S/o Late Shri Pyare Lal Dimar Aged About 73 Years Resident Of Near Sheetla Mandir Dimar Para Tikrapara Raipur Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Shri Raju S/o Late Shri Pyare Lal Dimar Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Near Sheetla Mandir Dimar Para Tikrapara Raipur Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Shri Nand S/o Late Shri Pyare Lal Dimar Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Sheetla Mandir Dimar Para Tikrapara Raipur Chhattisgarh 1.4 - Shri Laxmi Narayan S/o Late Shri Pyare Lal Dimar Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Sheetla Mandir Dimar Para Tikrapara Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Pragati Buildcon Through Partner Shri Sandeep Verma S/o Shri D.P. Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o C.4 Surya Vihar Panchpedi Naka Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate For State : Mr. Subham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13. 01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 16/10/2024 passed by 7 th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal Case no. 120-A/2024. 10.2 That, the petitioner application under section 151 of C.P.C. 1908 may be allowed and restrain the respondents to interfere in the property in question and restraining the Respondent from generating any third- party interests. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit land was purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale-deed on 08.10.1990 from Umesh Kumar Trivedi and Nita Acharya. He would further submit that the petitioner moved an application for mutation and that was allowed by the Tahsildar. He would also submit that the subject property was purchased by Umesh Kumar Trivedi and Nita Acharya from one Chhotelal Dhimar, and the legal representative of Chhotelal again alienated the property to defendant No. 6/respondent No. 2 through a sale-deed dated 27.12.2013. It is contended that the matter went up to the Board of Revenue, and thereafter, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit seeking relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession. It is further contended that the Civil Suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.06.2024 and a regular appeal has been preferred before the learned Court below. It is stated that an application under Section 151 of CrPC for the grant of temporary injunction was moved and the same has been rejected vide impugned Order dated 16.10.2024. It is further stated that an interim order may be granted in favour of the petitioner and the application moved under Section 151 of CrPC may be allowed. 3 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the property is in possession of defendant No. 6/respondent No. 2. He would further submit that the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed; therefore, the learned Court below rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of CrPC. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The petitioner purchased the property in the year 1990. The subject property was initially recorded in the name of Chhotelal; the legal representative of Chhotelal again alienated the property in favour of defendant No. 6/ respondent No. 2 and he is in possession; the petitioner filed a Civil Suit which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.06.2024; as there is judgment and decree against the petitioner, therefore, the right of the party on the basis of an application moved under Section 151 of CrPC cannot be decided, thus, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner; therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).Sd Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant