1 2026:CGHC:594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 91 of 2025 Mohammad Mumtajuddin S/o Mohammad Jahiruddin Aged About 47 Years R/o Budhapara, In Front Of Fatema Building, United Bank Of India, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Savitri Masih W/o Yohan Masih Aged About 67 Years R/o Raipur Naka, F.C.I. Godown Road, Ward No. 12, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Collectorate Campus, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 06.01.2026 1. By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC, the plaintiff/appellant is challenging the order dated 27/03/2025 passed by the 9th District Judge, Raipur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.68- A/2024, by which, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC has been rejected. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.01.07 16:00:59 +0530 2 2. (a) The plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to land situated in village-Jora, Patwari Halka No.66, R.N.M. Raipur 09, Tehsil and District-Raipur, C.G., pleadings inter alia that the suit land is in the name of defendant, who vide agreement dated 31/10/2023 agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 52,32,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid advance of Rs. 6,40,000/- and Rs.8,60,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the sale deed was to be executed within a period of three months, however, by one or other reason, the defendant is trying to avoid execution of sale deed. The plaintiff contended that the defendant No.1 with malicious intent and in violation of the terms and conditions of the sale agreement, is in search of another buyer to sale the disputed land. Along with suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and sought temporary injunction. 3. After considering the relevant facts and material, the learned trial Court by the order impugned, dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the defendant No.1 has never shown his readiness and willingness for execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. He would submit that the defendant No.1 is in search of buyer for land in dispute at a higher price. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, however, 3 the learned trial Court without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in its true perspective, has dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. Bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the plaintiff has not produced any documents or affidavit with regard to the fact that the defendant is in process of sale of the suit land in favour of any other person. No documentary proof placed on record along with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The application has been filed only on the presumption. Hence, it cannot be said that the defendant No.1 is going to sale the suit in favour of any third person. The plaintiff has also failed to establish his case by placing cogent and sufficient material. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that no balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff. The order impugned passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep