1 2025:CGHC:7017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 32 of 2025 1 - Meena Parte D/o Shri Ramlal Parte Aged About 72 Years R/o Vinoba Nagar R-2, Near Gayatri Temple, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Through The Power Of Attorney - Garima Agrawal, Aged About 32 Years, Wife Of Shri Gaurav Agrawal, R/o Vinoba Nagar R-2, Near Gayatri Temple, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Alok Kumar Lal S/o Late Shri S.B. Lal R/o Magarpara Chowk, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Rajeev Bharat, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.02.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC against the order dated 23.11.2024, whereby an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151 of the CPC, was rejected by the learned trial Court. 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and to declare the sale- deed dated 14.3.2019 as null and void. It is pleaded that the suit Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- property i.e. Khasra No.723/ 84, admeasuring 900 sq. ft., situated at Juna Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur, along with a house constructed on it, was recorded in the plaintiff’s name in the revenue records. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No.1 fraudulently executed a sale-deed in his favour, whereas the actual agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 was for the renovation of the house of the plaintiff. He would also submit that by playing fraud, the sale-deed was executed, and the plaintiff is still in possession of the property. He would contend that the learned trial Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application for a temporary injunction. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Admittedly, a registered sale-deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 on 14.3.2019 and the plaintiff has filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed; the plaintiff also filed an application for a temporary injunction, apprehending that the defendant may alienate the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The apprehension of the petitioner/ plaintiff appears to be genuine, as the plaintiff has filed a suit to declare the sale-deed null and void and during the pendency of the suit, if the property is alienated or third party interest is created the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. 3 6. Considering the above-stated facts, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the defendant not to create any third-party interest in the property till the disposal of the civil suit. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi