1 2025:CGHC:5458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 110 of 2025  Shyam Narayan Pandey S/o Late Ramkripal Pandey Aged About 55 Years R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja, C.G. (Plaintiff No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Shankar Prasad Soni S/o Late Mathura Ram Soni Aged About 61 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja, C.G. (Defendant) 2. Smt. Shanti Soni W/o Shankar Prasad Soni Aged About 56 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja, C.G. (Defendant) 3. Rahul Soni S/o Shankar Prasad Soni Aged About 29 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja, C.G. (Defendant) 4. Smt. Poonam Nagdev W/o Ashok Kumar Nagdev Aged About 50 Years R/o Shivam Palace In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja, C.G. (Defendant) 5. Sudhir Kumar Pandey S/o Late Deendayal Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Deviganj Road, In Front Of Jaiswal Chitra Mandir Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja, C.G. (Plaintiff No 2) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 2 30. 01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may graciously pleased to issue a writ/ command/ direction to set aside / quash the impugned order dated 17/01/2025 (Annexure P/1) with further direction to restore the interim order of injunction granted by the Additional District Judge on 06/01/2024. 10.2 That, a command/ direction may kindly be issued to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the court below for the kind perusal and the proper adjudication of the matter. 10.3 Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in view of the above facts and circumstances may also be awarded along with the cost of the petition.” 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner preferred a suit before the Ist Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur seeking a declaration of title and ownership of the suit land bearing Khasra No.434/3 area 311 sq. feet and injunction against the respondent. Subsequently, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the IInd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, wherein the learned appellate Court granted the temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. However, the said Court has directed the petitioner/plaintiff to complete the evidence of his witnesses before the trial Court within six months. It has been further directed that if the plaintiff completes his evidence within six months, then the effect of the order of temporary injunction shall continue till the final disposal of the suit otherwise after six months, the effect of the order of temporary injunction shall automatically lose its efficacy. Thereafter, the order dated 06.01.2024 was challenged by filing WP227 No. 337 of 2024, whereby the order dated 3 06.01.2024 was modified to the extent that if the delay in concluding the plaintiff’s evidence is not caused by him, the impugned order shall be effective till the disposal of the aforesaid Civil Suit and liberty was granted in favour of respondents/defendants to file an application before the concerned Court if undue delay is caused by the petitioner/plaintiff. The learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 and vacated the temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that earlier, the injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff by this Court in WP227 No. 337 of 2024 with the liberty to move an application for vacating stay before the learned Court below, if undue delay is caused by the plaintiff. He would further submit that the learned trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioner/plaintiff has adopted a delaying practice and vacated the interim order. He would also submit that defendants No. 1 to 3 have started raising construction over the disputed part of the suit land. 4. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the plaintiff/petitioner took adjournments on various dates, and therefore, the application for vacating stay was moved and the same was allowed by the learned trial Court. 5. Admittedly, the construction can be raised after the disposal of the Civil Suit and defendants No. 1 to 3 taking the benefit of the vacating order of stay have started raising construction, therefore, defendants No. 1 to 3 are directed that they shall not raise any construction till the disposal of Civil Suit. 6. The plaintiff as well as defendants is directed to cooperate in the smooth disposal of the Civil Suit however, if the petitioner/plaintiff fails to cooperate, respondents No. 1 to 3/defendants No. 1 to 3 shall be at liberty to file a 4 review petition before this Court and the learned trial Court is directed to make all endeavours to conclude the proceedings. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant