1 2025:CGHC:19772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 60 of 2024 1 - Ajit Kumar Yadav S/o Late Kuldeep Yadav Aged About 46 Years Caste - Yadav, R/o Village - Bhaisada, Tahsil - Janjigr, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Deendayal Colony, Mangala, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) ... Appellant versus 1 - Bharat Lal S/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 25 Years Caste - Mauwar, R/o Village - Sondeeh (Son), Police Station - Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant) 2 - Muleshwar S/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 22 Years Caste - Mauwar, R/o Village - Sondeeh (Son), Police Station - Akaltara, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jharokha S/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 26 Years Caste - Mauwar, R/o Village - Sondeeh (Son), Police Station - Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Samund Bai D/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 24 Years Caste - Mauwar, R/o Village - Sondeeh (Son), Police Station - Akaltara, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Domal Kumari D/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 20 Years Caste - Mauwar, R/o Village - Sondeeh (Son), Police Station - Akaltara, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Bhuneshwari Bai D/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 22 Years Caste - Mauwar, R/o Village - Sondeeh (Son), Police Station - Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Feeta Bai W/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 70 Years Caste - Mauwar, R/o Village - Sondeeh (Son), Police Station - Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 8 - The Tahsildar Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.05.05 12:53:50 +0530 2 9 - The Patwari Halka No.2, Sondeeh, Tahsil - Akaltara, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Collector Janjgir, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For appellant : Mr. Parasmani Srivas, Adv. For Respondents No. 8, 9 and 10 : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Adv. For respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7 : None, though served. For respondent No. 6. : None. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. This misc. appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 12- 4-2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by 1st Upper District Judge, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit A No. 34A/2023, whereby the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. (Henceforth, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.) 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that, plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 155/12, area 0.74 acre situated at village Sondih (Son) Patwari Halka No. 02, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir – Champa (CG) (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) pleading therein that, after purchasing the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 10-12-2012 from defendants/respondents No. 1 to 7, aforesaid suit land was recorded in the name of plaintiff in revenue record, but defendants No. 1 to 7 in collusion with revenue authority, recorded the 3 suit land in their name in revenue record, partitioned it and they are trying to sell it. Defendants are giving threats to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, therefore, he has filed aforesaid suit along with injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. He further submits that, plaintiff is in possession over the suit land since 2012 and the same was also recorded in his name in the revenue record, despite that, the defendants hatched conspiracy with revenue authorities and got recorded the suit land in their name and they have also partitioned the suit land between them and on the strength of it, they are trying to dispossess the plaintiff. He also submits that, learned trial Court also considered aforesaid fact, but declined to grant temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff only because, it has not been stated by plaintiff that, when said threat to dispossess the plaintiff was extended by defendant. All the necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction are in favour of plaintiff, therefore, he prayed that, the impugned order may be set aside and temporary injunction sought for by the plaintiff not to alienate the suit land be granted against defendants. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 7 have filed their written statement/reply, stating inter alia that, they have not mutated the suit land purchased by the plaintiff in their name. They have further pleaded that, they have neither manipulated revenue entries of the suit land nor it has been partitioned by them. They have also denied the allegation that, they have ever threatened plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit property. 4. Despite service of notice, respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7 are neither 4 present nor represented by any counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. As per pleading of plaintiff, he has purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed from defendants No. 1 to 7. He has also filed copy of registered sale deed dated 10-12-2012 and copy of Kistbandi Khatoni and Form B-1 of the year 2018-19, which shows that the suit land has been recorded in the name of plaintiff. In this regard, plaintiff has also filed copy of Rin Pustika, which discloses that, after selling of suit land, possession of the same was handed over to the plaintiff. Thus, as per revenue record and copy of sale deed, plaintiff was put in possession by defendants after sale of suit land in the year 2012. In para 11 of the impugned order, learned trial Court itself has held that, at present, the suit land is recorded in the name of defendants No. 1 to 7 instead of plaintiff. This fact supports the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that, defendants No. 1 to 7 have manipulated revenue entries and after changing his name in revenue record, defendants No. 1 to 7 have got recorded their own name. This change of revenue entries further support the contention of plaintiff that, defendants are threatening to dispossess him from suit land taking undue advantage of said revenue entry. Not disclosing particular date in respect of the threat extended by defendants No. 1 to 7 to the plaintiff cannot be held sufficient to disallow the injunction application particularly when defendants No. 1 to 7 have got changed revenue entries of suit land. In such situations, it can be safely held that, if 5 injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff, then defendants may create 3rd party interest, but learned trial Court without considering aforesaid fact and documents filed by plaintiff in true perspective, has declined to allow injunction application, which deserves to be set aside. 7. Consequently, this MA is allowed. The impugned order dated 12-4- 2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by 1st Upper District Judge, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit A No. 34A/2023 is set aside and defendants are restrained from creating third party interest or alienation of suit land till disposal of the above civil suit. 8. Accordingly, this misc. appeal is allowed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak