1 2026:CGHC:19476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1332 of 2025 1 - Dr. Shivendra Tripathi S/o Late Dr. Sharda Prasad Tripathi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post- Jevra Tahsil Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Dr. Jitendra Tripathi S/o Late Sharda Prasad Trpathi Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post Jevra Tahsil Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.) Current Res Of Irrigation Colony Karantola Bhanpuri District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shashi Tripathi W/o Sharda Tripathi Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Collector Office Bemetara Tahsil And District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vivek Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 27/04/2026 The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned order SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.30 11:03:47 +0530 2 dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned First District Judge, Bemetara in Civil suit No. 01-A/2024, whereby the application preferred by the defendant under Section 151 of CPC has been disposed of with a direction that any construction raised by the petitioners over the suit property will be subject to the final outcome of the civil suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court, while allowing the application under Section 151 CPC, has observed that in the event the ultimate decision goes against the plaintiffs, the construction raised by them would be liable to be removed. It is further contended that instead of invoking the powers under Section 151 of CPC, the appropriate course for the trial court was to consider the application under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 and not under Section 151 of the CPC, therefore the order impugned suffers from perversity and illegality. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of the document, Annexure P/2, which is a copy of the application filed by the defendant, it transpires that the defendant has claimed the suit property to be joint family property and has also asserted her independent title therein by filing a counter-claim. It is further evident that despite pendency of the civil suit, the plaintiffs are raising construction over the suit property. The defendant apprehended that such construction, if allowed to continue, would prejudice her rights and accordingly, prayed for restraining the plaintiffs from raising any 3 construction during the pendency of the suit. 5. Considering the application made by the defendant, the learned trial court, instead of granting an injunction restraining construction, has observed that any construction raised by the plaintiffs shall be subject to the final outcome of the suit. The trial court has taken into account the fact that the defendant has filed a counter claim and that in the event the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed and the counter claim is allowed, the rights of the defendant may be affected. Therefore, the learned trial court has observed that the construction raised by the plaintiffs shall be subject to the final outcome of the suit. 6. The observation made by the learned trial court while exercising powers under Section 151 CPC does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Section 151 CPC confers inherent powers to the learned trial court to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, including orders to safeguard the suit property during the pendency of the proceedings so that the right of the of the parties are not prejudiced. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court disposing of the application filed by the defendant under Section 151 CPC. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, fails and is hereby dismissed as such. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge