2026:CGHC:1834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5801 of 2025 1 - Manoj Mishra S/o Late Brijesh Mishra Aged About 43 Years R/o Vijayapuram Colony, Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 495006. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur C.G. 492102. 2 - Superintendent Of Police, District Bilaspur C.G.,office At Near Nehru Chowk, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 495001. 3 - Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 495001. 4 - Shri Nilesh Pandey, Then Town Inspector/in-Charge, Police Station Sarkanda., (Presently Line Attached), Bilaspur C.G., Through Superintendent Of Police, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Rajesh Mishra S/o Late Lalta Prasad Mishra Aged About 60 Years R/o Shri Ramkrishna Enclave, Near Sudha Sales, Nutan Chowk, Block No. 102, Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 495006. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Advocate. For Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 13/01 /2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to demolish and remove the wall constructed by respondent No. 5 with the aid of respondent No. 4 over the petitioner’s property at Plot No. 283, Sheet No. 21, Ward No. 20, Khata No. 551, Mahamaya Chowk, ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.13 17:00:05 +0530 Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.). The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to restore temporary access to the petitioner’s godown for evicting the material kept in the godown. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wall has been constructed without any permission or order by the competent authority which is causing difficulty to the petitioner for movement to his godown which has necessitated him to file suit before the learned Ninth Civil Judge Junior Division, Bilaspur bearing Civil Suit No. 157-A/2025. He would further submit that during pendency of the civil suit, respondent No. 5 with the aid of respondent No. 4 with intent to overreach judicial proceedings and harass the petitioner. He would further submit that the material has been kept in the godown and due to construction of wall, he is unable to evict the material from godown which is causing financial loss to him and would pray for grant of relief as aforestated. 3. Learned Senior counsel- Mr. Y.C. Sharma, assisted by Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate for respondent No. 4 would submit that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 both are his relative and he has no involvement in the dispute between them and he has been made party unnecessarily. He would further submit that the allegation levelled against respondent No. 4 is false, fabricated and far from truth and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Learned Senior counsel- Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent No. 5 vehemently opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by filing this petition, the petitioner intends to get protection under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. pending before the learned trial Court and he also intends to get possession of the property owned by respondent No. 5. He would further submit that the petitioner himself has confined his relief that he may be allowed to evict the material kept in the godown after demolishing the wall to the extent which is required for evicting the material and after evicting the material, he will reconstruct the wall which is not permissible in view of the fact that the application for grant of injunction is already pending before the learned trial Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the Police personnel have not committed any offence and there is no involvement of Police personnel in the said incident though the petitioners and respondents are relative also. He would further submit that now respondent No. 4 has been transferred to Ratanpur. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 7. Since civil suit is pending before the trial Court and the petitioner has already confined his submission to the extent that he may be allowed to evict his material kept in the godown by demolishing the wall and thereafter he will construct the wall which is evident from order dated 19.12.2025 passed by this Court, considering these aspect of the matter, the petitioner is directed to demolish the wall to the extent 3 sq.ft. so that he will be able to evict the material kept in the godown and thereafter he will construct the wall by his own expenses and will restore the same as exists prior to demolition. Let the same be done by Friday i.e. 16th January, 2026. 8. It is made clear that neither respondent No. 4 nor any Police personnel will object or obstruct the petitioner till eviction of the material kept in the godown and reconstruction of wall, failing which this Court will take serious view. The petitioner is also directed not to misuse the protection granted to him by this Court for evicting the material kept in the godown. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 10. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case and the trial Court is directed to decide the civil suit on its own merits without being influenced from any of the observation made by this Court while deciding the instant writ petition. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun