1 2025:CGHC:5866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 29 of 2025 1 - Smt. Rajkumari Sahu W/o Lt. Champalal Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Gram - Pakriya, Tehsil - Akaltara, Dist Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Kamlesh Soni W/o Santosh Soni Aged About 66 Years Director Of Kamal Real Estate Small Group, R/o C/o Santosh Soni, Gali No. 5, Kashyap Colony, Bilaspur, The And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Dist. Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Saluja, Advocate along with Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mandavi Bharadwaj, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 31 /01/2025 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule (1) (r) read with Section 151 of the the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the legality and sustainability of the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mungeli, District - Mungeli in Civil Suit No. A CLASS/46/2023 whereby, the learned Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff for SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 grant of temporary injunction in his favour, restraining the Defendant No. 1/Appellant herein from sale and other transactions of the land till disposal of the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is having no objection with respect to the order passed in restraining the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 from alienating the property by way of substance. However, it is not clear as to what is meant by other transactions. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the impugned order placed on record along with the appeal. 4. Perusal of the plaint filed by the Appellant/Defendant No. 1 which is placed on record as Annexure A/1 would show that the plaintiff has executed the sale-deed in favour of the Respondent No. 1. At the time of execution of the sale-deed, sale consideration (Rs. 17,00,000) has been paid by way of cheque, however, the amount of cheque could not be credited in the account of the plaintiff and thereby, the plaintiff was defrauded and have sought relief for declaring the sale-deed dated 15.03.2023 in favour of the Defendant No. 1/Appellant to be null and void and further prayed that the Defendant be restrained from selling the land to other persons, transferring the same and also, restraining the Defendant No. 1 from mutation of his name in the revenue records. Along with the plaint, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 is also filed with a prayer that the defendant be restrained from transferring the suit property by way of sale to the other persons, restraining from mutation of his name on the revenue records. 5. Learned Trial Court, considering the submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties as also, the pleadings made in the applications have passed the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the Defendant No. 1 from 3 selling the said property and other transactions till disposal of the suit property which, in the present facts of the case cannot be said to be erroneous. There is nothing which requires interference of this Court, as submitted by the counsel for the appellant. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby, dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey