1 2026:CGHC:19782 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 70 of 2026 Harpal Singh S/o Shri P.R. Singh Aged About 82 Years Resident Of Quarter No. 9C/79/sector 6, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Praveet Shaha S/o Late Shri Paresh Shaha Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Risama, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Reeta Shaha W/o Late Shri Paresh Shaha Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Risama, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Arti Shaha W/o Late Shri Ramesh Shaha Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Risama, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sushil Saha S/o Late Shri Ramesh Shaha Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Risama, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Osin Shaha D/o Late Shri Ramesh Shaha Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village Risama, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.04.29 17:36:27 +0530 2 6 - Ashim Shaha S/o Late Shri Jagdish Chandra Shaha Aged About 58 Years Resident Of Village Risama, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Dileep Kumar Shaha S/o Late Shri Jagdish Chandra Shaha Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Village Risama, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 - Kauri Shikshan Samiti Model Town, Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh 9 - The Collector District Durg, Chhattisgarh 10 - Vishwanath Patel S/o Shri Biseharam Patel Aged About 50 Years Resident Of House No. 330, Ward No. 18, Village Hanoda, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh …. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 29/04/2026 1. The appellant/ defendant No.2 has preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 49-A/2023 (Praveet Shaha & Ors. vs. Kauri Shikshan Samiti Model Town Bhilai & Ors.), whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit 3 property. 2. (a) The plaintiffs/ respondents No.1 to 7 herein have instituted a suit against the defendants seeking declaration and permanent injunction. (b) In the said suit, the plaintiffs have also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, stating therein that the suit land situated at Village Risama, Tahsil and District Durg, is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and is duly recorded in the revenue records. It is alleged that defendant No. 2, namely Harpal Singh, induced the plaintiffs to execute a registered sale deed dated 25.05.2015 in favour of his educational institute on the assurance that the sale consideration of Rs.16,70,000/- would be paid after receipt of government grant, however, despite execution of the sale deed, no consideration has been paid and the plaintiffs continue to remain in possession of the suit land. It is further alleged that the defendants are now attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and are trying to dispossess them without any lawful authority. Hence, asserting prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable loss, the plaintiffs have sought grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit property during pendency of the suit. 3. (i) Per contra, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed reply to the said application and denied all the allegations and submitted that the 4 suit land was validly sold by the predecessors of the plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated 25.05.2015 for a total consideration of Rs.16,70,000/-, which, as recorded in the sale deed itself, was fully paid and acknowledged by the vendors, and possession was also handed over to the defendants. It is further contended that the description of the suit property in the application is vague and insufficient for proper identification. The defendants have stated that subsequent mutation proceedings were initiated, wherein objections were raised by the plaintiffs on false grounds of non-payment of part consideration, which were later resolved, and additional amounts were also paid under pressure. It is further submitted that the defendants are in possession of the land and have been cultivating the same, whereas the plaintiffs have unlawfully interfered with the crop and initiated multiple proceedings, including criminal complaints and revenue litigation. The defendants have also relied upon subsequent mutation orders passed in their favour by the competent revenue authorities, which have been upheld in appeal. It is thus contended that the present suit and application have been filed with mala fide intention to avoid the effect of the registered sale deed and to harass the defendants. Accordingly, it is submitted that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case, balance of convenience is not in their favour and no irreparable loss would be caused to them, hence the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC deserves to be dismissed with costs. 5 (ii) Defendant No. 4 has also filed his reply and denied the averments of the plaintiffs and submitted that the suit land presently stands in his name, having been purchased through a registered sale deed, and he is in lawful possession thereof. It is contended that the plaintiffs have filed the suit on false and baseless grounds, as neither title nor possession vests with them. The land was earlier sold to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through a registered sale deed and possession was duly delivered, and thereafter, it has been validly transferred to defendant No. 4, who is recorded in the revenue records as being in possession. It is further submitted that no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss exists in favour of the plaintiffs. The dispute, if any, pertains to alleged non-payment of consideration by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, for which the proper remedy is recovery of money and not injunction. Hence, the application for temporary injunction, being not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed with costs. 4. After hearing the parties and upon consideration of the facts and material available on record, the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, holding that a prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiffs, particularly in view of the dispute regarding payment of full sale consideration and the doubtful conduct of defendant No. 2 in mutation proceedings. It has further been observed that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs as 6 further transfer of the suit land may lead to multiplicity of litigation and irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs if protection is not granted. Accordingly, the application for temporary injunction was allowed, restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property till final disposal of the suit or until further orders. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 submits that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order without properly appreciating the pleadings and the documentary evidence available on record. He submits that no prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss is made out in favour of the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction. He further submits that the respondents themselves admitted that the amount of Rs. 16,70,000/- has been received by them, as is clearly reflected from the registered sale deed dated 25.05.2015, which categorically records that the entire sale consideration was paid and nothing remains outstanding; thus, the plaintiffs are estopped from taking a contrary plea. Learned counsel also contends that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled legal position that a registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity and has also ignored the contradictory stands taken by the plaintiffs before the Tehsildar and the Trial Court, thereby showing mala fide conduct. He further submits that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant, who is in possession and have paid substantial 7 consideration, and that no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs, whereas the injunction has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Premlata @ Sunita vs. Naseeb Bee & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 2055-2056 of 2022, and submits that a party cannot be permitted to take contradictory stands before different authorities/courts and to approbate and reprobate at the same time. He, therefore, would contend that the plaintiffs have adopted inconsistent pleas and, as such, the impugned order granting temporary injunction is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order with utmost circumspection. 7. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case; upon considering the submission of the appellant; and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The Trial Court has rightly taken into account the contents of the registered sale deed dated 25.05.2015; however, it has also correctly observed that the core dispute between the parties pertains to the actual payment of the full sale consideration, which cannot be conclusively determined at the interim stage without leading evidence. The conduct of defendant No. 2 in the mutation proceedings, including his non- appearance leading to dismissal of the earlier application and 8 subsequent proceedings after the death of original vendors, has also been duly considered, giving rise to a triable issue. Thus, the finding regarding existence of a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. 8. The learned Trial Court has further rightly held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs, particularly in view of the fact that during pendency of the proceedings, the suit property has already been transferred to a third party, thereby creating a possibility of multiplicity of litigation if further alienation is not restrained. It has also been correctly observed that irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if the property is further transferred or its nature is altered during pendency of the suit. The Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction. 9. As far as the plea raised by the appellant that the respondents themselves admitted receipt of Rs.16,70,000/- is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any cogent proof or independent evidence substantiating such plea beyond the recital in the document, which itself is under challenge. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly held that a triable issue exists, giving rise to a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. 10. The impugned order reflects due application of mind and is based on the settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction. 9 No perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error is made out so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 11. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. The learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. The order being well-reasoned and legally sustainable calls for no interference and is affirmed. 12. Accordingly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar