1 2026:CGHC:17491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1163 of 2025 1 - Shivshankar Yadav S/o Late Dhannuram Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Chindiya Tehsil- Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Ramashankar Yadav S/o Late Dhannuram Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Chindiya Tehsil- Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) 3 - Balkunwar W/o Late Dhannuram Yadav Aged About 73 Years R/o Village - Chindiya Tehsil- Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Akash Yadav S/o Umashankar Aged About 27 Years Cast Bargah, R/o Village - Chindiya, Tehsil - Patna, District - Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Umashankar S/o Late Dhannuram Aged About 50 Years Cast Bargah, R/o Village- Chindiya, Tehsil - Patna, District - Koriya (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Koriya, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1-2 For Respondent No. 3 : : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 08/2025 whereby the Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and a temporary injunction has been granted in his favour. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 is the plaintiff before the learned trial court. He is prosecuting the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction before the learned trial court claiming that the grandfather of the plaintiff namely Dhannuram has executed a gift deed with respect to the suit property in his favour on 21.03.2023, and he being the sole title and possession holder of the property, is entitled to restrain the defendants from interference in his possession. The defendants are his uncles and grandmother. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC was also filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction for restraining the defendants, but the application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 11.07.2025, holding that the plaintiff is not having any prima facie 3 case. 4. In an appeal filed by the plaintiff before the learned Appellate Court the same was allowed by the impugned order dated 17.09.2025, holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property by virtue of the gift deed executed in his favour by Late Dhannuram, and the defendants have been restrained from interfering with his peaceful possession. In the suit the claim of the plaintiff is based on the gift deed dated 21.03.2023 executed by Dhannuram which has been denied by the defendants that Dhannuram was not mentally and physically fit and he was not competent to execute the gift deed with respect to the entire suit property, and other members of the family are also having right and title over the same. 5. The validity of the gift deed is to be decided after leading evidence of the respective parties. Present is the case where rival parties are claiming their possession over the suit property. The learned Appellate Court found that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and his possession is also mentioned in the recital of the said gift deed. Though the application of the plaintiff has been dismissed by the learned trial court which has been allowed by the learned Appellate Court, however there is limited scope to entertain the issue while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Where, the order passed is interlocutory, and in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested by Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, 4 the scope of interference is restricted. In the case of Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. Reported in 1990 Supp SCC 727 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 13 and 14 are as under: “13. On a consideration of the matter, we are afraid, the appellate bench fell into error on two important propositions. The first is a misdirection in regard to the very scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order. The second pertains to the infirmities in the ratiocination as to the quality of Antox’s alleged user of the trademark on which the passing-off action is founded. We shall deal with these two separately. 14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appelate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if 5 it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion.” 7. Considering the limited scope of interference in the issue involved in the present case, this Court deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property till the final adjudication of the suit, in which the parties also have no objection as submitted by their respective counsel. It is expected that parties shall co- operate with the speedy disposal of the suit and will not take any unnecessary adjournments. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property as on today till disposal of the suit. The interim order dated 17.12.2025 stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Madhurima