1 2026:CGHC:6030 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 208 of 2025 Shakti Singh Thakur S/o Shri Santosh Singh Aged About 34 Years Resident - Behind Rani Provision Store, In Front Of Sai Mandir, Nehru Nagar, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Motilal Dayalani S/o Late Dulara Duyalani Aged About 49 Years Resident - Smart City Road, Near Sanjivani Hospital Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power (Electricity) Distribution Company Limited, (CSPDCL) By Mr. Chief Engineer, Address - Ameri Road, Near Shri Ramcare Hospital, Nehru Nagar, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) …. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondent No.3/State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.02.04 10:48:14 +0530 2 03/02/2026 1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned 11th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 72-A/2025 (Shakti Singh Thakur vs. Motilal Dayalani & Others), whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking grant of permanent injunction to protect possession and to restrain defendant No.1 from transferring or alienating the suit property in any manner. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, on the basis of an agreement to sell entered into with respondent/ defendant No.1 for a total consideration of Rs.99,00,000/-, which was fully paid. Along with the suit, the appellant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking interim protection stating therein that despite receipt of the entire consideration, the respondent failed to execute the sale deed and later denied the agreement, interfering with the appellant’s possession. However, the said application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court, solely on the ground that the respondent is the recorded title holder. Aggrieved by the said order, passed without proper appreciation of material on record, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. 3 3. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 02.02.2026, Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 undertook that the electricity connection of the premises in question would be restored by the next day. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel submits that the electricity connection has already been restored. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has fairly not disputed the aforesaid submission made on behalf of respondent No.2 and has raised no objection in respect of the restoration of the electricity connection, thereby submitting that nothing further survives for adjudication on the said issue. 5. In addition, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that an eviction proceeding under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 is pending between the parties and the same is at its concluding stage. He further undertakes that till the final decision of the said eviction proceeding, the possession of the appellant shall not be disturbed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Since the electricity connection has admittedly been restored and no dispute survives on that issue, nothing further remains to be adjudicated in that regard, in the present appeal. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 regarding the pending eviction proceedings and 4 the undertaking given that the possession of the appellant shall not be disturbed till the decision of the eviction proceeding under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, this Court is of the considered view that no further adjudication on merits is required at this stage. 9. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the electricity connection has already been restored. It is directed that the possession of the appellant shall not be disturbed by the respondent till the final decision of the eviction proceeding pending under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar