1 2025:CGHC:32751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 169 of 2024 1. Gopichand Netam S/o Late Motiram Netam Aged About 72 Years R/o Gandhirvapara, Ashok Nagar, Ward No. 42, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Shriprakash Jatashankar S/o Sundar Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Gandhirvapara, Ashok Nagar, Ward No. 42, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Akash Singh Dhruv S/o Sundar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Gandhirvapara, Ashok Nagar, Ward No. 42, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Suryakant Dhruv S/o Bhagirathi Dhruv Aged About 30 Years R/o Gandhirvapara, Ashok Nagar, Ward No. 42, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Shailendra Gupta S/o Aniruddh Gupta Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Gudi, Tehsil Sipat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Nagar Palik Nigam Bilaspur Through The Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam, Bilaspur, Vikas Bhawan, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Savina Agrey, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14. 07.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in MCA No. 65/2023 dated 05.01.2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs under SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.16 17:46:35 +0530 2 Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC was dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 26.07.2023, whereby the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was rejected, has been affirmed. 2. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed a Civil Suit for eviction after the demolition of the illegal structure and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property situated at Ward No. 42, Ashok Nagar, Chatidiah, Patwari Circle No. 33, Tahsil and District Bilaspur inter alia on the ground that there was a 10 feet wide public road since 40 years and respondent No. 2/Municipal Corporation has constructed two feet wide drainage adjacent to it. The drainage water is sleeking on the road, and thus, respondent No. 1 is violating the easement rights of the residents of the locality. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was also moved. The application moved by the petitioners for temporary injunction was rejected vide order dated 26.07.2023. The petitioners preferred an appeal and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have a prima facie case in their favour. She would further submit that according to the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar dated 22.05.2023 and the report submitted by the Patwari, it is evident that respondent No. 1 has raised a wall over drainage and the application for temporary injunction was rejected on the ground that to decide the dispute with regard to drainage lies with the Municipal Corporation. She would also submit that the construction of the wall by respondent No. 1 is apparent from those reports and therefore, the learned Courts below ought to have allowed the application for temporary injunction. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would oppose. He would submit that the drainage was proposed by the Municipal Corporation 3 in the map and illegal construction has not been raised by respondent No. 1. He would further submit that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the learned Courts below. 5. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. The learned Courts below have recorded categorical findings that defendant No. 1 produced a copy of the sale-deed pertaining to the purchase of survey No. 16/1 admeasuring 0.020 hectare along with a copy of the sanctioned map by the Municipal Corporation. Learned Courts below further recorded a finding that the petitioners have not filed affidavits of the locality to establish that respondent No. 1 has raised the construction of a wall over drainage. It is also observed that the construction of drainage has already been completed and in the absence of documents and evidence, no order of temporary injunction can be passed in favour of the petitioners. 7. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Courts below, I do not find any good ground to interfere with those orders. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings of the Civil Suit. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant