1 2026:CGHC:5249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 226 of 2025 Venkat Rao S/o Kondaya Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 10/a Street No.28, Sector-07 Bhilai District- And Tehsil Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Udasa Bai W/o Shri Har Prashad Sahu Aged About 59 Years Respondent R/o Block- 1, Khamhariya, Jewra Sirsa Durg District- And Tehsil Durg (C.G.) 2 - Har Prashad Sahu Respondent R/o Block-1, Khamhariya Jewra Sirsa Durg, District- And Tehsil Durg (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant :Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 :Shri Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate For Respondent/State :Shri Lekhram Dhruv, Panel Lawyer. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.01.30 17:44:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 25A/2024 (Venkat Rao v. Smt. Udasi Bai and Others), whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking grant of ad-interim injunction. 2. The appellant/plaintiff instituted a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 30.06.2022 and permanent injunction in respect of land situated at Village Charbhatha, PH No.-10, Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon, bearing Khasra Nos. 642/4, 644/3, 713 and 714/1, admeasuring 1.810 hectares (4.47 acres) pleading inter alia that the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 18,00,000/-, which was agreed to be paid in full on the date of registration through cheque. On the assurance of respondents No.1 and 2 that the entire consideration would 3 be duly paid, the appellant executed the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1. 3. The plaintiff further pleaded that the cheque issued towards the sale consideration was dishonoured and despite repeated requests and demands, respondents No.1 and 2 deliberately avoided payment. It was contended that respondent No.1 fraudulently secured ownership of the appellant’s land without payment of consideration and on the basis of the impugned sale deed, a mutation order dated 14.12.2022 was passed. The appellant has challenged both the sale deed and the mutation order as illegal, void and liable to be cancelled. 4. The defendant filed his written statement denying and disputing all the averments made in the plaint. It was specifically pleaded that the appellant is wilfully avoiding acceptance of the legitimate sale consideration, despite the respondents being continuously ready and willing to make payment. The defendants averred that after dishonour of the cheque and receipt of the legal notice issued by the appellant, they duly replied thereto and requested the appellant to furnish his bank account details for immediate transfer of the sale consideration through RTGS. It was further contended 4 that the appellant deliberately failed to provide the requisite bank details, which clearly demonstrates his mala fide intention to avoid receiving the sale consideration. 5. Along with the suit the appellant/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, pleading that he had sent a legal notice dated 22.07.2022 through his counsel calling upon respondent No.1 to treat the sale deed dated 30.06.2022 as void. It was alleged in the said application that despite receipt of the said notice, respondent No.1 failed to take any corrective steps and fraudulently obtained mutation of the entire 4.47 acres of land without payment of any sale consideration. The appellant further stated that he has also initiated criminal proceedings against the respondents by filing an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The appellant further contended that respondent No.1 is likely to alienate the disputed land on the strength of the registered sale deed dated 30.06.2022, which would result in irreparable loss to him. It was pleaded that since no sale consideration has been received, a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury lie in favour of the appellant. 5 6. The defendant filed the reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, specifically denying the allegation of non-payment of sale consideration. It was further submitted that even assuming non-payment, the appellant is only entitled to recovery of the sale consideration and not to seek cancellation of the registered sale deed. 7. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court by order dated 14.08.2025 dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC holding that although the plaintiff asserted that he would suffer irreparable loss in the event defendant No.1 alienates the suit land or creates third- party rights, the plaintiff had already executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the suit property. The Court held that even if defendant No.1 creates third-party interest in the land, the alleged loss can be adequately compensated by directing payment of the sale consideration of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only) to the plaintiff. The Trial Court further held that since the alleged loss is compensable in monetary terms, no irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff by refusal of temporary injunction. Consequently, it was held that the plaintiff failed to establish a 6 prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in his favour. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order of the learned Trial Court is vitiated by material irregularity and illegality, as it failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence, including the dishonoured cheque of Rs. 18,00,000/-, and erroneously held that the appellant did not establish a prima facie case. It is further submitted that all three essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury are clearly made out in favour of the appellant, as alienation of the disputed land would cause irreparable loss not compensable in money. 9. Learned counsel also contends that the Trial Court erred in placing undue reliance on mutation entries in the revenue records, which are fiscal in nature and do not confer title, and failed to correctly weigh the comparative hardship or exercise judicial discretion in granting injunction. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application for temporary injunction be allowed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 7 11. Upon perusal of the record, including the orders passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Ghumka dated 14.12.2022, the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Rajnandgaon dated 28.04.2023, and the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg dated 09.05.2024, it is evident that the suit land purchased by respondent No.1 has been duly transferred in his favour in the revenue records. The plaintiff has himself acknowledged in the plaint that possession of the suit land was delivered to respondent No.1 as per the sale deed dated 30.06.2022, which prima facie establishes respondent No.1’s ownership and control over the disputed property. 12. From bare perusal of the order impugned it is manifest that the plaintiff has only speculated that the respondents may alienate the suit land to third parties in the future. However, there is no material on record to demonstrate any actual attempt or steps taken by the respondents to transfer or deal with the property irregularly. The alleged apprehension of irreparable loss is, therefore, purely speculative. Further, even assuming any such loss, it is compensable in terms of money by payment of the sale consideration of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the plaintiff. During the course of argument, the appellant’s counsel placed the alleged sale deed from which it is apparent that the land has been sold 8 with a remarks that the seller has got all the consideration and handed over the posession. In these circumstances, the requirements for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, are not satisfied. 13. In view of the above, no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, and the order of the learned Trial Court is hereby afÏrmed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib/Gowri