1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 17 of 2025 1 – Fulchand, S/o Late Ramswarup Vishwakarma, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Manendragarh, District M.C.B. C.G. 2 - Pradeep Kumar, S/o Fulchand Vishwakarma, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Manendragarh, District M.C.B. C.G. 3 – Kuldeep, S/o Fulchand Vishwakarma, Aged About 48 Years,R/o Ward No. 10, Manendragarh, District M.C.B. C.G. 4 - Rajesh Kumar, S/o Fulchand Vishwakarma, Aged About 40 Years,R/o Ward No. 10, Manendragarh, District M.C.B. C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - President Bhupendra Club Defendants Manendragarh Through Ramanuj Agrawal, S/o Madanlal, Aged About 80 Years, R/o In Front Of Jain Mandir, Manendragarh, District M.C.B. C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (C.G.). 3 - Naib Tahsildar/Nazul Tahsildar, Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For State/ Respondents No.2 and 3 Mr. Ratan Pusty, G.A. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 2 30.01.2025 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the First District Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea, in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2024, whereby, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been rejected. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and injunction to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1994, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, in Civil Suit No.4A/1992, in relation to Nazul Plot No.3/10 ad-measuring 30,000 square feet be declared as null and void and, praying further that the mutation order based upon the said decree is not binding upon them. Along with the said claim, an application enumerated under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been made praying for restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the land in question, i.e. the part of said Nazul Plot ad-measuring 1850 square feet. 3. It appears that the said suit, i.e. C.S. No.4-A/1992 was instituted by the Respondent No.1, wherein a declaration of title with regard to the Nazul Plot No.3/10 ad-measuring 30,000 square feet situated at Manendragarh of District Korea was claimed. The said 3 suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.1994, and since, the plaintiffs were not impleaded therein, therefore, after receiving the notice dated 27.05.2024, issued, in pursuance to the said decree by the Executing Court, the plaintiffs have instituted the instant suit, registered as Civil Suit No.14A/2024, claiming the reliefs as mentioned herein-above. 4. From perusal of the record would, reveal further that the plaintiffs had earlier instituted a suit, being C.S. No.16-A/2011 claiming declaration of title with regard to the part of said Nazul Plot ad- measuring 1850 square feet, on the basis of adverse possession. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 27.04.2017, by learned Second Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, and being aggrieved with the same an appeal being First Appeal No.261/2017, was preferred and the same is pending consideration before this Court. 5. What is, therefore, reflected that by virtue of the judgment and decree, dated 30.03.1994, passed in Civil Suit No.4-A/1992, the Respondent No.1 has been held to be the owner of the Nazul Plot No.3/10 ad-measuring 30,000 square feet and, the claim of the plaintiffs instituted earlier in C.S. No.16-A/2011, with regard to the part of said Nazul Land ad-measuring 1850 square feet has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017, although, the appeal being First Appeal No.261 of 2017 against the said judgment is pending before this Court, but, in view of these 4 case, so as to entitled to get the temporary injunction against the respondents, as prayed for in the said application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. 6. In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting their application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC., so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 7. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Arpan