1 2025:CGHC:19212 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 395 of 2025 Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Aawas Sangh Maryadit C-191, First Floor, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G., Through- Its Regional Officer, Shri Vijyendra Upadhyay S/o (Late) Shri Radheshyam Upadhyay, Aged About 64 Years R/o C- 191, First Floor, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Madhukar Shende S/o Shri Dimani Shende Aged About 62 Years Ex-Liquidator (Retired), In Front of Petra Niwas, Dongargarh, Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. 2 - Shrimati Shobhna Rajput W/o Shri Sanjay Rajput Aged About 47 Years R/o Plot No. 70, Near Lohia House, Kailash Nagar, Kurud, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 3 - Priyadarshani Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Kurud, Bhilai Registration No. D.R./ 103, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. Through- Its Liquidator/president- Rajendra Verma. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Collector, Durg, District Durg, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29. 04.2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 1. The objection raised by the Office is hereby overruled. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order passed by the learned 4th District Judge, Durg in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 72/2023 dated 07.12.2024, whereby Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.69A/2018 has been affirmed. 3. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed Civil Suit 69A/2018 for declaration of title and permanent injunction inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 3 borrowed loan from the petitioner/society for development of plots and the subject property was mortgaged. Respondent No. 3/society failed to repay the installments, therefore, a liquidator was appointed. The liquidator sold the plots to respondent No. 2 of these writ petitions through registered sale-deeds. The petitioner/society challenged the sale-deeds including the right of respondent No. 1 to alienate the plots. The petitioner moved applications under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC in Civil Suits. The learned Trial Court vide orders dated 08.08.2023, rejected the application moved by the petitioner for temporary injunction on the ground that subject plots have already been sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 through registered sale-deeds and the petitioner is not in possession. The petitioner challenged the said in various Civil Suits by filing Miscellaneous Appeals under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC. The learned appellate Court dismissed all appeals affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 4. Mr. Mahendra Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 1/liquidator had no authority of law to execute the sale-deed during the liquidation proceedings in favour of defendant No. 3 2 of all Civil Suits. He would further submit that the subject property was mortgaged with the petitioner, and therefore, the liquidator was not competent to execute sale-deeds. He would also submit that defendant No. 2 of all Civil Suits may further alienate the property and create a third party interest, therefore, a protective order may be passed in favour of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner is not in possession of the suit property and this fact is evident from pleadings made in the plaint. He would further contend that the liquidator exercising its power, executed sale-deeds in favour of defendant No. 2 of all Civil Suits. He would also submit that if the petitioner succeeds in pending Civil Suits, his right would be protected according to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He would contend that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court, and therefore, these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. From a perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the subject property was mortgaged by defendant No. 3 with the petitioner for the development of plots. Respondent No. 3 failed to make payment of installments; therefore, a liquidator was appointed. The liquidator alienated the plots through registered sale-deeds in favour of defendant No. 2. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in possession of the suit plot(s). The learned Courts below have considered this aspect of the matter and categorically held that the prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are not in favour of the petitioner, and thus, the 4 applications for temporary injunction and appeals were dismissed. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any other plausible view in this case. Accordingly, instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, alienation of plots or creation of a third party interest shall be subject to the final outcome of the pending civil suits and the petitioner would be at liberty to defend its rights according to provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 10. The Civil Suits have been pending since 2018; therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM