1 2025:CGHC:20164 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 316 of 2020 • Sukhan Ram S/o Gendlal, Aged About 83 Years Cast Kalar R/o Village Navgai, Tahsil Odgi, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. Ram Vichar S/o Shivdhari, Aged About 70 Years Cast Kalar, R/o Village Navgai, Tahsil Odgi, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Nityanand Pathak S/o Ramadhar Pathak, Aged About 53 Years Cast Bramhan, R/o Village Thadpathar, Tahsil Odgi, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No. 3 For Respondent No. 1 : : : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate None Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02/05/2025 1. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 20/2019, dated 13.02.2020, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with an application Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 for interim injunction. The application was rejected by the trial Court on 19.05.2017 on the ground that Survey No. 611, new No. 612 admeasuring 1.220 hectares was wrongly recorded in the name of the plaintiff. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 2. Mr. Nikhil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that due to a mistake, the suit property was recorded in the name of the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has no right over the suit property, therefore, the learned trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction and the Appellate Court affirmed the findings. He would also submit that evidence of the parties has already been completed and the civil suit is fixed for final arguments. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, particularly that the civil suit is at its fag end and further considering that the suit property was recorded in the name of the petitioner due to a mistake, no case is made out for interference. 6. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti