1 2025:CGHC:4857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 90 of 2025 1 - Lal Kumar Patel S/o Late Mohan Singh Patel Aged About 66 Years Caste - Aghariya, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village - Kotra Tahsil - District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Lalit Kumar Patel S/o Late Milketan Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Kotra Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Suresh Kumar Patel S/o Late Milketan Patel Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Kotra Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Mu. Nandai Wd/o Late Milketan Patel Aged About 75 Years R/o Village - Kotra Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Rajesh Kumar Patel S/o Late Bhagirathi Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Kotra Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Brajesh Kumar Patel S/o Late Bhagirathi Patel Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Kotra Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Naresh Kumar Patel S/o Late Bhagirathi Patel Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Kotra Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Lalita Bai Wd/o Late Bhagirathi Patel Aged About 67 Years R/o Village - Kotra Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- For Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 29/11/2024 passed by Principal District Judge Raigarh District Raigarh (CG) in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 17/2024 which arise out of the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned trial court in Civil Suit No. 360A/2019. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ/order/ direction towards the defendants to make an status quo with regard to the suit land till the final decision of the civil suit. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate, according to facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted. An affidavit in support of this petition is being filed herewith.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit land is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants and they have been in possession since the years 1970-80. It is further pleaded that the condition of the house situated over the suit land is in 3 dilapidated condition, therefore, defendant No.4 is raising a new construction. During the pendency of the civil suit, defendants No.1 to 3 showing themselves as members of the below poverty line obtained permission under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna and started the construction of a house. It is further pleaded that the construction of the house by defendants No.1 & 2 would multiply the dispute between the parties. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC making prayer that defendants No.1 & 2 may be restrained from raising further construction. 3. Defendants No.1 to 3 filed their reply to the application for temporary injunction. They pleaded that the suit property was partitioned between the plaintiff, Minketan Patel and Bhagirathi Patel in the year 1986 and each one got 506.66 sq.meter of land and the house constructed over it. It is also pleaded that the parties are in possession of their respective shares. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has constructed a septic tank and tube- well on his land. 4. Defendants No.4 to 7 supported the case of defendants No.1 to 3. The learned Trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction moved by the respondents vide order dated 05.08.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2024. -4- 5. Mr. Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Gram Panchayat, Kotra has issued a ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of the petitioner and the same has not been considered by the Courts below. He would further submit that the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of the petitioner. He would contend that the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and before partition of the suit property, the construction of the house would multiply the dispute between the parties. He would further contend that the defendants may raise the construction after the partition of the suit property. He would lastly submit that the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court may be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pandey. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. Admittedly, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession. The suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants and they are in possession since the year 1970-80. The suit land comprises three Survey Nos. 547, 555 and 1520. The defendants pleaded that the suit property was partitioned into 5 three equal parts in the year 1986. It is also stated that there are three separate houses. The defendants further pleaded that the fathers of defendants No. 1 to 3 namely, late Minketan Patel and Bhagirathi Patel during their lifetime, renovated their old houses and also got constructed a septic tank. It is also stated that there is a separate electric meter in their house. It is further pleaded that the father of defendants No.4 to 7 namely, late Bhagirathi Patel was in possession of 506.66 sq.meter of land and the house situated over it. In their house, there is an electric connection in the name of Rajesh Kumar Patel. Likewise, the plaintiff is in possession of 506.66 sq.meter of land and the house. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff has got constructed a septic tank and tube-well and the electricity connection is available in his own name. 9. The plaintiff has not assigned any reason as to how the construction of the house by the defendants would multiply the dispute between the parties. If there is no partition between the parties, the concerned Court will pass such an order and the parties will get their shares. 10.From a perusal of the pleadings made in the plaint, the application for temporary injunction and the reply to that application, it is apparent that in favour of the petitioner, a prima facie case is not made out. Further, the construction, if any, raised by the -6- defendants would not cause any irreparable injury. As it is contended by the defendants that the suit property was partitioned in the year 1986, therefore, the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the plaintiff. 11.Taking into consideration the facts as discussed above, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha