1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 27 of 2026 1 - Tularam Pal S/o Late Jantupal Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Suhela, Tahsil Simga, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Manharan Lal Verma S/o Late Mohar Singh Verma Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Suhela, Tahsil Simga, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Khapradih, Tahsil Simga, P.S. Bhatapara (Gramin) Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For State / Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 12/01/2026 Challenge in this writ petition is to judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, CG by which the appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short CPC) was dismissed affirming the order dated 11.03.2024 by the Civil Judge Class-II Simga, District Balodabazar CG in Civil Suit No. 22-A/2023 by which the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed. PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.01.12 17:23:18 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for declaration of title and specific performance of contract in respect of suit property comprised in piece of Khasra No. 1094 area 0.390 hectare situated at Village Suhela, P.H. No. 34, R.I.C. and Tahsil Suhela, District Balodabazar was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondent No. 1/ defendant No. 1. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed interalia pleading that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property since 2004 and the respondent No. 1/ defendant No. 1 may disturbed the possession and sale the suit property to some other person. Thus, a injunction may be granted restraining the respondent No. 1/ defendant No. 1 to alienate the suit property. The learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 11.03.2024 rejected the application against which the petitioner/plaintiff preferred Misc. Appeal which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge. He submits that both the Court below failed to appreciate that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property for almost 19 years. The petitioner has claimed his title on the basis of adverse possession and also claim specific performance of contract. If the third party interest on the suit property is created, it would cause irreparable. Thus, the petition may be admitted and notices may be issued. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the dispute is the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent No. 1 / defendant No. 1. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit seeking the above stated relief at the strength of some agreement to sale executed on 21.01.2004 as it is a case of the plaintiff that it was put his of possession by virtue of an agreement. From the perusal pleading it appears that for almost so may year the petitioner / plaintiff does not appear to have acted upon execution of the sale agreement which is only in the year 2023 the civil suit was filed after issuing of legal notice. The civil Judge while deciding the application in 3 paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 held that as per the revenue record the suit property appears to have been recorded in the name of respondent No. 1 / defendant No. 1. Prima facie the learned Civil Judge found that respondent No. 1 / defendant No. 1 is title and possession holder in the suit property. Sofar as the possession of petitioner / plaintiff, in paragraph No. 9 of the order it has categorically given a finding there is no documents with regard to possession of the petitioner / plaintiff has been filed. Thus, on that basis, the learned Civil Judge found that three ingredients. i.e. prima facie case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss is not in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff. The finding of fact which has recorded by the learned Civil Judge has also been affirmed by the District Judge. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Puri Investments Versus M/s young friends and co. & Ors. reported in 2022 Live law (SC) 279 has held that three situations were spelt out in the judgment under appeal as to when a finding on fact or question of law would be perverse. These are: (I) Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence or, (ii) Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) Based on inferences that are impermissible in law.” 7. This Court is of the view that both the Court below has not acted illegally or with material irregularity there is not jurisdiction error while passing the impugned order. 8. Thus, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. All pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Pawan