1 2025:CGHC:42642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 831 of 2025 1. Shyamlal S/o Late Gopal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Bhendhari, P.S. And Tehsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 2. Geeta Devi Wd/o Late Shivmangal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Bhendhari, P.S. And Tehsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 3. Shivpratap S/o Late Shivmangal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Bhendhari, P.S. And Tehsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 4. Anup Kumar S/o Late Shivmangal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Bhendhari, P.S. And Tehsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 5. Anu Kumari D/o Late Shivmangal Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Bhendhari, P.S. And Tehsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 6. Shiv Balak S/o Late Shivmangal Aged About 18 Years R/o Village- Bhendhari, P.S. And Tehsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Michael Khakha Wd/o Late Jospeh Khakha Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Kadhiya, Post - Kerta/ Chainpur, P.S.- Chalgali, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 2. Poonam Khakha D/o Late Jospeh Khakha Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Kadhiya, Post - Kerta/ Chainpur, P.S.- Chalgali, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 3. Kishore Khakha S/o Late Jospeh Khakha Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Kadhiya, Post - Kerta/ Chainpur, P.S.- Chalgali, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.16 11:41:19 +0530 2 4. Ismail Khakha S/o Late Jospeh Khakha Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Kadhiya, Post - Kerta/ Chainpur, P.S.- Chalgali, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 5. Ishak Khakha S/o Late Jospeh Khakha Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Kadhiya, Post - Kerta/ Chainpur, P.S.- Chalgali, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 6. Ashok S/o Late Bandhan Sao Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Padholi, P.S.- Chalgali, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. 7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : 10. Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate 11. For Respondent(s) 12.13. Mr. Vedant Sadangi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant against the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2008 in which learned trial court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC against that order, the defendant has preferred an appeal before First Additional District Judge, Balrampur, Ramanujganj which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2022 wherein the appeal filed by the defendant has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit was filed on 17.05.2018 more than 7 years has already been lapsed, still the matter is not reached to its logical end. He would further submit that the matter is fixed for plaintiff’s evidence, in case this court does not find fit to interfere in the order he would pray for early disposal of the suit. 3 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission and would submit that both the courts below have rightly passed the judgment and decree which does not warrant interference by this court. He would further submit that the trial is going on according to convenience of the Court, therefore, no such direction is required to be passed and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Considering the submission and the fact that the order was passed by the trial Court allowing the injunction and has taken into consideration the fact that essential ingredients are required for grant of injunction i.e. prima- facie, case in favour of the plaintiff, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The said finding has been affirmed by the appellate Court which cannot be found faulty or suffers from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court, therefore, petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. 6. However, submission made by counsel for the defendant that the suit is pending since 2018 more than 7 years has already been lapsed and still the matter is fixed for plaintiff’s evidence which clearly demonstrates that adjudication of the suit is delayed for the reason best known to the parties or the trial Court whereas the speedy trial is paramount consideration of delivering justice system, therefore, a direction is required to be issued by this Court for early disposal of the suit. 7. Considering this aspect of the matter, it is directed that the trial court shall make an endavour to decide the case expeditiously within outer limit of 1 year and nine months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. It is 4 made clear that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant will adopt the delay tactics to stall the trial of the suit and if such situation is created by either of the party the trial court is free to proceed against erring parties in accordance with the law. 8. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh