Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46763 (CHH)

RAJESHWARI DEVI AGRAWAL v. SAROJ KUMAR GUPTA

WP227/21/2025 · 2025-01-10

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:1624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 21 of 2025 1. Rajeshwari Devi Agrawal W/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Mukesh Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 3. Rajendra Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 4. Jitendra Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 39 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Saroj Kumar Gupta S/o Late Bhupendra Prasad Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Road No. 3, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Dharmendra Agrawal S/o Late Motilal Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Ayodhya Apartment, 35-A, Malviya Nagar, Ward No. 24, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 10/01/2025 1) At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5) submits that a direction may be issued to the learned trial Court to decide the pending application moved by respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. He further submits that trial Court has passed an order of status quo in an application moved U/s 151 of CPC which was not permissible as per law. 2) Heard. 3) Taking into consideration submission made by Mr. Verma, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to learned trial Court to decide the pending application filed by respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC expeditiously, preferably within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4) Accordingly, instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya