1 2025:CGHC:56048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A No.140 of 2025 Virendra Pal Raijada S/o Late Satyapal Raijada Aged About 66 Years R/o House No.118/1, Ward No.22, FCI Godown, Singpur Road, Sohagpur, District Shahdol Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant/Defendant versus Deshpal Raijada S/o Late Satyapal Raijada Aged About 69 Years R/o Behind T.V. Tower, Anupam Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 18.11.2025 1. This Appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the 8th District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.11.18 15:50:07 +0530 2 No.58-A/2024 whereby, while allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC, only a limited relief has been extended in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff that no third party interest shall be created with respect to subject Suit property. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the alleged agreement for which, the Suit for specific performance has been filed, was admittedly executed on 12.09.2005 and the Suit has been filed only on 26.06.2024, therefore, the Suit itself was not tenable and prays to set aside the order impugned. 3. Alternatively, learned Counsel for the Respondent supports the order impugned. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also perused the impugned order with due care. 5. Here, it is pertinent to take note of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which clearly stipulates that during pendency of the Suit, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto. 6. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is a bona fide purchaser and only to harass him, this 3 Civil Suit has been filed by his real brother. She, therefore, prays for issuance of a direction to expedite trial. 7. Upon scrutiny of the order impugned and having taken note of relevance of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, this Court does not find any illegality or manifest perversity in the order impugned. 8. Accordingly, this Appeal being bereft of any merits, is hereby dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite trial. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya