1 2025:CGHC:56402 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1156 of 2025 1 - Smt. Haseen Bano (Khatun) D/o Sheikh Suleman Shah Aged About 59 Years W/o Rashid Ali, R/o Pratapganj, Sarangarh, Presently R/o Ward No. 10, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Bhanpur, Raipur. 2 - Farid Ali S/o Rashid Ali Aged About 35 Years R/o Pratapganj, Sarangarh, Presently R/o Ward No.10, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Bhanpur, Raipur. 3 - Dastagir Ali S/o Rashid Ali Aged About 32 Years R/o Pratapganj, Sarangarh, Presently R/o Ward No. 10, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Bhanpur, Raipur. 4 - Shahnaj Bano D/o Rashid Ali Aged About 38 Years R/o Pratapganj, Sarangarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Ward No. 10, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Bhanpur, Raipur. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Siddharth Pandey, Advocate through V.C. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. 2 ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 19/11/2025 Challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to a judgment dated 05/07/2025 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sarangarh, District–Sarangarh Bilaigarh, CG. in Misc. Civil Appeal No.04/2024 by which the miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC was dismissed and order dated 03/04/2024 passed by the Additional Judge, Sarangarh of 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.49A/2022 rejecting the application of the petitioners / plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that they have filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a house constructed in piece of khasra No.968, area 1326 sq.ft. out of 1.011 hectare situated at village-Sarangarh, Pratapganj (for short ‘the suit property’). 3. As per pleadings of the plaint, the ancestors of the petitioners/plaintiffs are residing in the suit property since 1974 and they are in continuous possession of the said property and on account of adverse possession, they have perfected their title. Therefore, seeking declaration of title on account of adverse possession on the suit property and also permanent injunction, the suit was filed. He submits that along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was also filed inter alia pleading that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the suit property till disposal of the civil suit. The said application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 03/04/2024, against which the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred miscellaneous civil appeal which was also dismissed by the impugned order. He submits that both the Courts below committed an error of law and fact in rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. Both Courts below failed to appreciate that the petitioners/plaintiffs were able to show a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for grant of injunction which was overlooked by learned Civil Court as well as by the appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till disposal of the civil suit, status quo in respect of the suit property may be directed to be maintained by the parties. 3 4. Learned State counsel submits that there are two concurrent finding of facts against the petitioners/plaintiffs. Learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application for injunction filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs which was subsequently affirmed by the learned appellate Court. The concurrent finding of fact may not be disturbed by this Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. From perusal of the plaint appended with the petitioner, it appears that the suit was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in respect of declaration of title on account of adverse possession on the suit property. They have also claimed permanent injunction. Learned trial Court while deciding this application categorically held that the plaintiff has neither in present application nor in the plaint mentioned as to how the State of Chhattisgarh which is the defendant in the present suit is dispossessing the plaintiff or is damaging the property. It has also held that essential requirement of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC have not been complied with and thus rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction. Learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal held that the suit property is recorded as ‘NksVs ÷kkM+ ds taxy’ in the nazool and held that it is a Government land and is being allotted to the Mohammedans for grave yard and for way. It has further observed that prima facie the title and possession of the respondent is shown and found that prima facie case is not firmly established in favour of petitioners/ plaintiff and also found that balance of convenience and irreparable loss is also not in favour of the petitioners / plaintiffs. 7. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court and appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse and contrary to the records warranting interference by this Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition devoid merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it appears that the civil suit was filed in the year 2022, therefore, it is expected that the learned trial Court shall expedite the trial. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.11.22 11:36:40 +0530