1 2025:CGHC:57865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 285 of 2024 1 - Pawan Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Ledgaram Dewangan, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village And Post- Kharora, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chandulal Dewangan S/o Shri Ledgaram Dewangan, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post- Kharora, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Kumari Lela Dewangan D/o Shri Ledgaram Dewangan, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village And Post- Kharora, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Birajo Dewangan D/o Shri Ledgaram Dewangan, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village- Achhauli, P.S. Urla, Tahsil And District-Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Ramhin Dewangan D/o Shri Ledgaram Dewangan, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village- Achhauli, P.S. Urla, Tahsil And District-Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Durpat Dewangan S/o Shri Ledgaram Dewangan, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Sandi, P.S. Mandir Hassaud, P.S. And Tahsil- Aarand, District-Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Punni Bai Dewangan D/o Shri Ledgaram Dewangan, Aged About 60 Years W/o Koduram Dewangan, R/o Village And Post- Kharora, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 8 - Lata Bai Dewangan D/o Shri Ledgaram Dewangan, Aged About 45 Years W/o Hariram Dewangan, R/o Village- Velsoda, P.S. And Tahsil - Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 2 1 - M/s Ultratech Cement Limited, Mahakali Wales Road Andheri, Branch-Ultratech Cement Baikunth, Tahsil -Tilda, Through Authorised Officer Ultratech Cement Limited Baikunth, Tah. Tilda, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ledgaram Dewangan S/o Shri Ammu Dewangan, Aged About 91 Years R/o Village And Post- Kharora, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Nandu Dewangan S/o Shri Ledgaram Dewangan, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Post- Kharora, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Kaushilya Bai Dewangan W/o Ledgaram Dewangan, Aged About 85 Years R/o Village And Post- Kharora, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Adv through VC For respondent No.2 to 4 : Mr. P. K. Patel, Advocate For respondent No.5/ State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 27/11/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief:- 10.1 It is therefore prayed that the record of Court below may be called for disposal of the instant petition. 10.2 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 passed by learned Appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 10/2023. 10.3 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the application U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2021. 3 10.4 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10/2023. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or order or direction as deem fit in the interest of the justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of a suit property comprised in piece of Khasra Nos.295/ 1, 298/ 1, 386/4, 389, 490/1 & 788, area 0.736 Hectare, 1.191 Hectare, 0.114 Hectare, 0.267 Hectare, 1.028 Hectare and 0.235 Hectare respectively, the total Khasra No.06, area 3.571 Hectares, situated at Village Kharora, P. H. No.31 Tah. Kharora, District Raipur (CG). He submits that the said property was sold by respondent No.2/ father of the petitioner to respondent No.1 vide a registered sale deed dated 04.09.2021. He further submits that the aforesaid properties are ancestral properties and the petitioners are also coparceners of the said property. Although respondent No.2 had a right to sell his share of the ancestral property, the entire share of the petitioners as well as the respondents, has been sold. Therefore, the civil suit, seeking the above-stated relief, was filed before the learned Civil Judge, Class-2 Tilda, District Raipur. Initially, the learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 10.01.2023 allowed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC and granted injunction with regard to restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. The injunction was only granted for one year. Later on, an appeal was preferred by the respondent No.1, which was allowed by the impugned order. He further submits that by the impugned order, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge granting the injunction was set aside by the learned Appellate Court, which is put challenge before this Court. He submits that the finding recorded by Civil Judge was based on a proper appreciation of the material available on record and found a prima facie case in balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the petitioner. This well merited finding has been set aside by the first appellate 4 Court by the impugned judgment, therefore, it requires to be set aside. He submits that the property was an ancestral one and the entire property cannot be sold by one coparcener. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge has rightly granted the injunction in favour of the petitioner. 3. Opposing the submissions Mr. Siddharth Shukla and Mr. P. K. Patel, learned counsel for respondents submits that whether the property is a ancestral is a question required to be determined at the stage of trial. They submit that the property was self-acquired property and, in fact, the father/ respondent No.2 was residing with respondent No.3, therefore, the civil suit was filed inter alia treating it to be ancestral property. The sale deed has not been challenged as bad in law, and the right, title and interest have been acquired by respondent No.1 through the said sale deed. Therefore, considering all aspects of the matter, the learned Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal and the order of the Civil Judge was set aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the property is ancestral, which was sold by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 but which has been refuted by respondents herein. Though the Civil Judge found the prima-facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in favour of the petitioner and granted the injunction, the perusal of impugned order by the appellate forum clearly indicated that the plaintiffs have not filed any documentary evidence to suggest that the property was an ancestral property. It has been further observed by Appellate Court whether they are the coparcener is a matter of evidence. Neither were any revenue documents produced to suggest that, prior to respondent No.2, the property was recorded in the ancestral’s name of the petitioners. The finding has also been recorded that the property was sold by registered sale deed, therefore, the balance of convenience was also found in favour of respondent No.1 herein, and the appeal was thus allowed, and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge was set aside. This Court is in agreement with the finding recorded by First Appellate Court and does not find that this finding has been 5 recorded without appreciating the material available on record or perversely. The writ petition thus fails and is hereby dismissed. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the suit was filed in the year 2022, the learned Civil Judge may be directed to expedite the trial. 7. Not opposed by other parties. 8. It is expected that the Civil Judge may expedite the trial, subject to the cooperation of the parties. 9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.12.03 10:51:57 +0530