1 2026:CGHC:8214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 32 of 2026 Ram Chandra Chetti S/o Lt. K.V. Chetti, Aged About 73 Years R/o.- N.D.-66, CSEB Colony, Tehsil Korba, District Korba C.G. ... Appellant versus Shobhraj Chandani S/o Lt. Rhandamal Chandani, Aged About 51 Years R/o- C.1, C.2. 17-A Kosabadi, Tehsil- Korba, District Korba C.G. …. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ishan Saluja, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 16/02/2026 1. The appellant/defendant has preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned 3rd District Judge, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 07-A/2024 (Dr. Shobhraj Chandani vs. Shri Ram Chandra Chetti), whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.02.17 10:29:37 +0530 2 plaintiff therein under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of the CPC. 2. The plaintiff/respondent has instituted a civil suit for specific performance pleading inter alia that a shop constructed over Plot No. 04, admeasuring 4000 sq. ft., out of which 2000 sq. ft. built-up area is the subject matter of agreement, situated at C-1, Kosabadi, within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.), on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 29.06.2021 executed with the defendant. It is pleaded that the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.3,21,00,000/-, out of which Rs.11,00,000/- was paid as advance. Despite receipt of the earnest amount, the defendant failed to execute and register the sale deed within the stipulated time, compelling the plaintiff to file the suit. It is further averred that prior to execution of the agreement, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit shop as a tenant and, after 29.06.2021, it was orally agreed that the plaintiff would continue to pay Rs.50,000/- per month as rent till execution and registration of the sale deed, which condition is being duly complied with. The plaintiff is still in possession of the suit shop. It is alleged that after service of summons in the present suit, the defendant, with mala fide intention, filed an application before the Rent Control Authority, Korba, seeking eviction of the plaintiff without disclosing the pendency of the suit for specific performance. The defendant is also stated to be making efforts to sell the suit shop to third parties. Apprehending alienation of the suit property during pendency of the suit, which would cause irreparable loss and multiplicity of 3 proceedings. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant from transferring or creating any third-party interest in the suit property till final disposal of the suit. 3. Per contra, the defendant/appellant herein filed his reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC and denied the contention raised by the plaintiff. According to the defendant as per the agreement dated 29.06.2021, the sale deed was to be executed within six months, and though the defendant was ready and willing to perform his part, the plaintiff failed to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period. It is further pleaded that a registered rent agreement valid up to 30.06.2024 was executed between the parties and, after its expiry, the plaintiff is in unauthorized possession, for which eviction proceedings have been initiated before the Rent Control Authority, Korba. The defendant has denied any intention to alienate the suit property and submitted that no case for grant of temporary injunction is made out, hence the application deserves to be dismissed. 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 plaintiff, observing that the plaintiff had contended that the defendant is attempting to alienate the suit property to a third party, as evident from the notice served on the plaintiff directing him to vacate the property and the application filed by the defendant before the Rent Control Authority, Korba, seeking eviction. It was further noted that the defendant has not shown any 4 breach of contract by the plaintiff, whereas the plaintiff alleged that the defendant himself has violated the agreement by failing to obtain the ownership documents from the Municipal Corporation and secure the plaintiff’s possession. The learned trial Court further observed that according to the plaintiff in the absence of a temporary injunction, he would suffer irreparable loss as he may be dispossessed and it would become impossible to enforce the sale agreement. Accordingly, the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was allowed in favour of the plaintiff vide impugned order dated 02.12.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 is illegal and perverse. He submits that the trial Court misinterpreted the sale agreement by placing the onus on the appellant to provide documents before the respondent could pay the remaining consideration, whereas the agreement clearly required the respondent to pay the balance within six months. The respondent has failed to honor this essential term and continues in illegal possession of the property after expiry of the lease on 30.06.2024. He further submits that the trial Court erred in holding that a prima facie case and balance of convenience lie in favor of the respondent and that irreparable loss would occur, whereas there is no likelihood of alienation to any third party. Hence, the impugned order is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record and the impugned order with utmost circumspection. 5 7. Upon perusal of the record and the impugned order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned 3rd District Judge, Korba, and after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed that the trial Court has carefully considered the pleadings, material on record, and submissions of both the parties before allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. It is noted that the trial Court has examined the averments regarding the alleged likelihood of alienation of the suit property, the status of possession, and the terms of the sale agreement. 8. Learned trial Court also observed that from perusal of the receipt and agreement, it is evident that between the period from 29/06/2021 to 25/02/2022, the plaintiff make payment of Rs.41,00,000/-, however, the defendant himself failed to obtain the sale permission and document regarding title from the corporation within the time frame prescribed under the agreement. The Court has recorded that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the balance of convenience heavily lies in his favor, and in the absence of interim protection, he would suffer irreparable loss. The impugned order reflects a reasoned exercise of judicial discretion based on the facts of the case. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, it is apparent that no substantial illegality or infirmity has been demonstrated in the impugned order. The findings of the trial Court are in accordance with law and do not call for any interference at this stage. 6 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar