1 2025:CGHC:47173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 176 of 2025 1 - S.R. Sahu S/o Lt. M.R. Sahu Aged About 69 Years R/o Geetanjal House. Ameri Road, Nehru Nagar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Smt Usha Sahu W/o S.R. Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Geetanjal House. Ameri Road, Nehru Nagar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Jageshwari Sahu D/o Brijesh Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Geetanjal House. Ameri Road, Nehru Nagar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Note: Age of appellant No.1 is wrongly mentioned in the impugned order ... Appellants versus 1 - Laxminarayan Sharma S/o Lt. Shri Shivnandan Sharma Aged About 65 Years R/o R-2, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Commissioner Division Bilaspur, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Sakri District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Dhirendra Singh (The Then Patwari), Village Ameri, Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.09.15 16:45:35 +0530 2 For Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 15/09/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.16-A/2023 by the 2nd Additional District Judge, District Bilaspur, whereby the application preferred by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit on 01.02.2023 by making an averment inter alia that he had purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2/appellant No.2 herein, namely Smt. Usha Sahu, on 31.03.2005. After the said purchase, his name has already been mutated in the revenue records. However, the Revenue Court, by misinterpreting a judgment passed in a different subject matter of the litigation i.e. for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff and one Ravi Prakash Sharma (Civil Suit No.168-A/2014, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.05.2017 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge), which was subsequently, affirmed by this Court in FA No.368/2017 vide judgment dated 14.09.2022, struck off the plaintiff’s name from the revenue records. It was averred that the sale deed in question has not been declared null and void in any prior litigation and the plaintiff claims to be a bonafide purchaser. It was further averred that respondent had 3 earlier filed Civil Suit No.322/2014 before the 7th Additional District Judge, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The instant Civil Suit has been filed for partition and permanent injunction, wherein an interlocutory application was filed, which has been allowed by the impugned order. Hence, this Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law. As the name of the defendant has already been mutated in the revenue records prior to the institution of the suit, which was filed on 01.02.2023, the trial Court ought to have maintained the status of the suit property as it existed on the date of institution of the suit. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and thus, prays to allow the Appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the Appeal carefully. 5. Admittedly, the sale deed executed by appellant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff has not been declared null and void by any Court. Therefore, any observations made in prior proceedings would have no bearing on the validity of the said sale deed. The plaintiff has duly purchased the subject property through a registered sale deed and his name was accordingly mutated in the revenue records. Prima facie, it appears that the Revenue Authority has misinterpreted the judgment passed in the earlier round of litigation. The scope and subject matter of the previous case were entirely different and the Revenue Authority wrongly struck 4 off the name of the plaintiff from the revenue records and erroneously mutated the name of the defendant on 12.12.2022 6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit or substance in the present Appeal. 7. Resultantly, the Appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Consequently, I.A. No.01/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal also stands dismissed, as the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 524 days. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka