1 2025:CGHC:31458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 74 of 2021 1 - Umashankar Tiwari, S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Tiwari, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chitranjan Mishra (Since Dead) Through L.Rs, 1.1 - (A) Bhawna Mishra, W/o Late Chitranjan Mishra, Aged About 43 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Qtr. No. 17/313, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - (B) Chitwan Mishra, S/o Late Chitranjan Mishra, Aged About 20 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Qtr. No. 17/313, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Santoshi Kaushik, W/o Budhram Kaushik, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Parsada, Post Tifra, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.07.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.12.2020 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2020 by the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC was dismissed, and the order of the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.22A of 2019, rejecting an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, was affirmed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract, declaration of the sale-deed dated 12.7.2019 as null and void, alongwith a prayer for permanent injunction. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 29.2.2020. 3. An agreement to sell was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff on 8.6.2007, and the consideration amount was duly paid. Subsequently, a registered sale-deed was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, and possession of the suit property bearing Survey No.832/5, admeasuring 0.394 hectares, was handed over to defendant No.2. 4. As the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, his application for temporary injunction was rejected, and the said order was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. I do not find 3 any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi