1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1335 of 2025 1 - Santosh Goyal S/o Late Dhuli Ram Goyal, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, Tahsil Sipat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhura Yadav S/o Late Sudhram Yadav, Aged About 61 Years Village Khamhariya, Tahsil Sipat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State : Mr. T. L. Bareth, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 17/12/2025 This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by passed by the learned 10th District Judge, Bilaspur, CG in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2025 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) was dismissed. The said appeal was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the 4th PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.12.17 15:42:29 +0530 2 Additional Civil Judge to 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bilaspur, CG in Civil Suit No. 102A of 2025 by which it has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil suit for specific performance of contract was filed in respect of the suit property comprised in piece of Khasra No. 268/2, area 0.30 acre situated at Village Khamharia out of which 0.05 acres land recorded in the name of respondent No. 1 and his mother. The respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 executed an agreement to sale this 0.05 acre of the land with the petitioner/plaintiff on 18.11.2021 and received Rs. 1,70,000/- in cash as earnest money. He submits that when the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 refused to execute the sale deed, a suit for specific performance was filed. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed inter-alia pleading that the respondent No. 1 / defendant No. 1 be restrained from alienating the suit property to another person. That application was rejected against which the appeal preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff has also been rejected. Both the Courts below have not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and failed to appreciate that three ingredient of grant of injunction i.e. prima facie case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss is in favour of the petitioner. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned 10th District Judge, Bilaspur, CG in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2025 may be set aside. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. The perusal of the order passed by the Civil Judge indicates that it has categorically held that prima facie case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss were not find in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge has also been affirmed by the learned 10th District Judge, Bilaspur, CG and it has also observed no infirmity has been demonstrated. Thus, on due consideration, this Court 3 does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 5. In view of above, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 6. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan