1 2025:CGHC:54022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 217 of 2025 1 - Kartiko Ram S/o Late Sukaru Ram H/o Late Manpyari Bai Aged About 75 Years. 2 - Balbhadra Yadav S/o Shri Kartiko Ram Aged About 50 Years. 3 - Krishna Yadav S/o Shri Kartiko Yadav Aged About 47 Years. 4 - Devmati Bai @ Dhamela Bai, D/o Kartiko Aged About 40 Years. 5 - Giridhar Ram S/o Late Rajendra Ram Aged About 53 Years. 6 - Nagpati W/o Rajendra Aged About 40 Years. All Caste Gayar Occupation Agriculture R/o Village Uparkacchar P.H.N. 03, Rani M. Tapkara, Tehsil Farsabahar District- Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). ..Appellants/Defendants. versus 1 - Prabhu Ram S/o Late Shivnath Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Uparkacchar Tehsil Farsabahar District- Jashpur (C.G.) (Plaintiffs). 2 - Jhori Singh S/o Late Shivnath Aged About 56 Years Village Uparkacchar Tehsil Farsabahar District- Jashpur (C.G.). 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Jashpur District- Jashpur (C.G.). AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.11.06 16:33:31 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s)/Plaintiffs. For Appellant : Shri Virendra Verma, Advocate. For State/Res. : Ms. Mandwi Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 06/11/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the First District Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur C.G. in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.4/2024, whereby duration of temporary injunction has been extended in Civil Suit bearing No.20-A/2021 pending before the Civil Judge Class-I, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, as in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.1/2023, vide order dated 10.05.2023, temporary injunction was granted in favour of plaintiffs for a limited period of 6 months and the same has since lapsed. 2. Counsel for the appellant/defendants submits that a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for a limited duration. However, the plaintiffs have not taken proper steps to advance the proceedings and have delayed the trial. So, at this juncture, learned counsel submits that this Appeal may be disposed of with a direction to the concerned trial Court to decide the suit in an expeditious manner and if the plaintiffs delay the trial in any manner, the concerned trial Court shall issue proper notice to them as to why the interim stay granted in their favour should not be vacated. 3. Having considered the limited prayer made by counsel for the appellants 3 and for the reason that an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs has already been granted, the duration of which, as earlier fixed by the First Appellate Court has lapsed, which has since been extended by the impugned order, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned trial Court to proceed in the pending civil suit (original case) in an expeditious manner. Ordered accordingly. 4. Furthermore, no adjournment should normally be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and if the concerned trial Court finds that the plaintiffs are delaying the trial in any manner, after issuing appropriate notice to the plaintiffs, it may take appropriate steps for vacating the interim stay. 5. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash