1 2025:CGHC:6725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 127 of 2025 1 - Hemsingh Sahu S/o Late Chatur Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Matiya, Ward No. 14, Post- Bargaon, Tahsil- Berala, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Radheshyam Sahu (Died) Through Legal Heirs - Nil 2.1 - Rukhamani Sahu W/o Late Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Matiya, Tahsil- Berala, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 2.2 - Smt. Purnima Sahu D/o Late Radheshyam Sahu, W/o Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Jamul, District- Durg, (Chhattisgarh) 2.3 - Smt. Nemin Bai D/o Late Radheshyam Sahu W/o Anil Kumar Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Singarpur, Tahsil- Balaudabazar, District Balaudabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 2.4 - Smt. Nita Shu D/o Late Radheshyam Sahu, W/o Tejram Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Jevari, Tahsil Bemetara, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sitaram Sahu S/o Late Chatur Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Matiya, Ward No. 14, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Goukaran Sahu S/o Late Chatur Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Matiya, Ward No. 14, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bemetara, Tahsil And District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Santoshi Bai Chelak W/o Devlal Chelak Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Chetua, Tahsil- Berala, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : None even in the second round For State/ Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 06/02/2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, District Bematara (C.G.) in Misc. Civil Appeal/11/2024 dated 10.12.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has AJINKYA PANSARE Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.07 10:58:08 +0530 2 been dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 04.07.2024 has been affirmed. 2) Facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction pertaining to lands bearing Khasra Nos. 1001, 1002, 1002, 1021, 1022, 1048 and 2037/2 ad-measuring 1.84 hectares situated at Village-Bargaon, P.H. No. 24, Tehsil-Berla; Khasra Nos. 643, 797, 798/1, 807 and 824 ad- measuring 2.0600 hectares situated at Village-Matiya, P.H. No. 24, Tehsil-Berla; Khasra No. 798/2 ad-measuring 1.15 hectare situated at Village-Matiya and Khasra Nos. 795/1, 808/2, 809/2 and 806 situated at Village-Matiya, P.H. No. 24, Tehsil-Berla, District Bemetara. The plaintiffs also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for the grant of temporary injunction; the respondents/defendants filed a reply to it. Learned trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 23.07.2022 and thereafter, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2023. The petitioners preferred WP227/397/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2023 directing the trial Court to expedite the trial. Thereafter, the petitioners moved a fresh application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 04.07.2024. Subsequently, Misc. Civil Appeal was preferred by plaintiffs and the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2024. 3) It appears that earlier an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was moved and the same was rejected by learned trial Court and that order was affirmed by the appellate Court. In WP227/397/2023, this Court issued a direction to trial Court to expedite the trial and the order passed by the appellate Court was not agitated and thus the 3 plaintiffs waived their right to challenge the order passed by appellate Court. 4) Though there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to file a fresh application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC but the same was preferred by them and it was rejected by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that the earlier order passed by the trial Court was affirmed by the appellate Court as well as by this Court, no case is made out for interference with the subsequent order. 6) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya