1 2026:CGHC:7318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 813 of 2025 1 - Sunil Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Ashok Kumar Tiwari Aged About 45 Years R/o Ashok Vihar Road Phase 2 In Front Pragati Park Rajkishor Nagar, Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Special Power Of Attorney Holder Pramod Kumar Pathak Aged About 58 Years S/o Late Ganesh Prashad Pathak R/o Kashyap Colony. Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Triveni Devi W/o Late Ramdayal Tiwari Aged About 85 Years R/o Devrikala, Post Bharni Tehsil Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Special Power Of Attorney Holder Ashok Kumar Pathak S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Pathak Aged About 71 Years R/o Karbala Road Kanupriya Niwas Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ishwari Pathak W/o Krishna Kumar Pathak Aged About 55 Years R/o Hatri Chowk Juna Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Devjani Pandey W/o Dilip Pandey Aged About 54 Years R/o In Front Of Kumhar Para School Karbala Road Bilaspur Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Jitendra Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Ramdulare Tiwari Aged About 47 Years R/o Kanchan Vihar Colony, Chantidih Bilaspur Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Anil Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Ashok Tiwari Aged About 47 Years R/o Ashok Vihar, Phase - 2 In Front Of Pragati Park Rajkishor Nagar Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.02.17 18:17:56 +0530 2 6 - Sushil Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Ashok Tiwari Aged About 43 Years R/o Ashok Vihar, Phase - 2 In Front Of Pragati Park Rajkishor Nagar Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Akhil Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Ashok Tiwari Aged About 40 Years R/o Ashok Vihar, Phase - 2 In Front Of Pragati Park Rajkishor Nagar Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. P. Dutta, Advocate For State/Respondent No.8 : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3 to 7 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sa chin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/02/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of India is to an order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 50/2025 by the 9th District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred as ‘District Judge’). 2. By the order impugned, the learned District Judge has allowed an appeal filed under order 43 rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’) and set-aside the order passed by the learned 10th Civil Judge Junior Division, Bilaspur District – Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred as ‘Civil Judge’) in Civil Suit No. 191A/2021 dated 08.05.2024, by which the application filed by 3 the petitioner under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 of CPC, was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed property in this writ petition is comprised in piece of Khasra No. 299/2002 in area 0.52 acre land situated at Village Sarkanda, P.H. No.20 Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). The said property was purchased by the grand mother of the petitioner Smt. Gulaba Bai by registered Sale Deed dated 08.03.2002 from its erstwhile owner Govardhan Prasad Dubey, S/o. Ram Prasad Dubey. Thereafter, the name of grand mother of the petitioner was mutated in the Revenue record. Father of the petitioner namely Ashok Kumar passed away on 30.01.2019. Later on, when the petitioner in order to mutate his name along with the other legal representative in the Revenue record he obtained certain revenue documents, and then it came to his knowledge that the suit property was divided in two parts and half of the portion was recorded in the name of respondent No.1 and the other half was recorded in the name of respondent No.2. Thus, seeking relief for declaration of title over the suit property in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and respondents No.2 to 7 the suit was filed. The prayer for permanent injunction was also sought that the respondent No.1 shall not interfere in the possession of the suit property. Along with the application, the petitioner/plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC inter alia with a prayer that till the disposal of the suit, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 be restrained from sale of the suit property and also from making any construction over the suit 4 property. The said application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 08.05.2024. The respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge which by the impugned order was allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is a stranger, and admittedly the suit property was purchased by the grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff Smt. Gulaba Bai, whose name was also recorded in the revenue records. He submits that as the father of the petitioner has died, the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 7, being successors of Smt. Gulaba Bai are entitled to record their name in the revenue records as they became the title holder of the suit property. As the property was recorded in the name of respondents No.1 & 2, he was constrained to file the suit. Learned Civil Judge has rightly granted the injunction finding 3 ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and granted the injunction in favour of the petitioner. That merited finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge was dislodged in the appeal filed by defendant No.1. He submits that mere recording the name in the revenue record does not create any title or interest over the suit property in favour of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, thus, learned District Judge has committed an error of law in exercise of its jurisdiction with the material irregularity, ignoring this factual aspect of the matter. Thus, he submits that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 5 5. Opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Agrawal submits that the respondent No.1 and the grand mother of the petitioner Smt. Gulaba Bai was supposed to purchase the suit property in the joint name. When half of the money was paid by respondent No.1, however, on the date fixed for execution and registration of sale deed, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 suffered injuries, thus, she could not appear before the O/o of Sub Registrar, for registration and execution of the sale deed and thus the sale deed was registered in favour of grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff. He submits that as the 50% amount of the said sale deed was paid by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, the grand mother of the petitioner voluntarily partitioned the property and made an application before the Tahsildar to record the name of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 on half of the share, thus, as such the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is mutated in the revenue record. This fact could not be properly appreciated by learned Civil Judge and he committed an error in allowing the application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2. The learned Appellate Court sensing the error in the order passed by learned Civil Judge found no ingredients to grant injunction. As a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss have not been found in the in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India may not disturb the very well reasoned finding recorded by 6 the learned District Judge. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. 6. Shri P. Dutta, adopts the argument advanced by Shri Agrawal, counsel for the respondent No.1. 7. Shri Topilal Bareth, counsel for the respondent No.8 submits that the dispute is between petitioner & the private respondents and State is a formal party. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Perusal of the record shows that it is not in dispute that the suit properly was purchased by the grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that the suit was filed in the year 2021 and the father of the petitioner/plaintiff had already passed away by that time. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/plaintiff is the grand son of the Gulaba Bai. The learned Civil Judge while deciding the application under Order 39, rule 1 & 2 has found in paragraph 8 that on the basis of documents available on record, prima facie it is apparent that the sale deed was executed in favour of the grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge has also found that under the family arrangement, some part of the suit property was transferred in the name of respondent No.2/Ishwari Pathak. In support of which the consent letter and registered family arrangement was filed. Learned Civil Judge also found that recording of the name of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 with 7 the consent of grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff is a matter of evidence and as such the sale deed was executed in favour of the grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff. This Court finds that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. As regards the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the learned Civil Judge found that it lies in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge has also observed that as the property was purchased by Smt. Gulaba Bai, grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff with the consent given by her for recording the name of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is matter of evidence. The learned District Judge in the appeal has disturbed the finding holding that under the family arrangement, the partition of half of the suit property was given to respondent No.2/Ishwari Pathak and the name was also recorded on the revenue record and found that the suit property was purchased by the grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff and thus, she had a right to partition the suit property. The learned Appellate Court also observed that with the consent of Smt. Gulaba Bai, the name of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was recorded in the revenue records and thus found merits in the appeal filed by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and allowed the same and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge was set-aside. 10. From the perusal of record, it appears that the factum of purchase of suit property by the grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff was not at all in dispute. Learned Civil Judge while deciding the application 8 came to a definite finding that the factum of giving consent by the deceased Smt. Gulaba Bai, grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff and partition deed requires to be proved by leading the evidence. The learned Civil Judge also found that by the impugned order injunction was not granted, which could cause irreparable loss to the petitioner/plaintiff. The relief which is sought by way of injunction is that the respondents shall not create any third party interest in the suit property and be restrained from making any construction over the suit property. The petitioner/plaintiff is grand son of Smt. Gulaba Bai in whose name the property was recorded and therefore, under the succession, he is entitled to receive share in the suit property. If the suit property is sold by the respondents, it would create multiplicity of litigation, if any construction is made and it would also create complication for deciding the dispute of suit property. The finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge appears to be based on proper appreciation of evidence and material on record. Of-course, there appears to be partition deed and consent of late grand mother of the petitioner/plaintiff in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2, but all these factual scenario are required to be proved by leading the evidence. The reason which has been assigned by the learned Civil Judge appears to be more proper and adequate. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the impugned order cannot sustain the judicial scrutiny of this Court and therefore, it is set-aside and the application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is allowed. The respondents are restrained from 9 creating any third party rights or interest over the suit property and also from making any construction over the suit property. At this stage, Shri Agrawal submits that as the suit was filed in the year 2021, the learned Civil Judge may be directed to dispose of the suit within a specific period. This is not objected by the respective counsel appearing in this case. Thus, the prayer appears to be reasonable. It is expected that learned Civil Judge shall expedite the trial and conclude the same within a reasonable period of time subject to cooperation of the parties. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ravi Mandavi