1 / 4 2026:CGHC:23863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 609 of 2026 1 - Smt. Urmila Singh W/o Shri Harishchandra Aged About 85 Years 2 - Ajay Kumar Singh S/o Shri Harishchandra Aged About 65 Years 3 - Narendra Pratap Singh S/o Shri Harishchandra Aged About 58 Years All are agriculturists R/o Village- Dhangayi Vikramganj Natwar Road S D O Regintens Bihar Present Address Ward No .12, Shankar Mandir Dharamjaygarh Thana And Tahsil- Dharamjaygarh Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Mohd. Rizwan S/o Shri Abdul Vadud Aged About 49 Years By Caste- Musalman Occupation - Business 2 - Mohd Safik S/o Shri Abdul Vadud Aged About 39 Years Occupation- Business Both are R/o Neechepara Dharamjaygarh Ward No 12 Tahsil- Dharamjaygarh Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Raigarh Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Government Advocate ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.06.19 17:59:12 +0530 2 / 4 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 15/06/2026 Heard. 1. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 11/03/2026 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. in Civil Suit No.A-25/2023 whereby the learned trial Court preponed the date of hearing from 23/03/2026 to 11/03/2026 and passed an order of status- quo with respect to the subject property till the decision of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are defendant No.1 to 3 in the trial Court and Respondents No.1 & 2 are prosecuting the civil suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and also for permanent injunction. Along with their suit the plaintiffs have also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and the suit is filed on 28/07/2023 since then their application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was pending. After service of notice upon the petitioners, they entered their appearance before the trial Court and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and the case was adjourned on different dates and ultimately the case was fixed for 23/03/2026 for argument on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and for reply of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In the mids of the proceedings on 11/03/2026 the plaintiffs have filed an 3 / 4 application for urgent hearing and for preponment of the date of hearing on the apprehension that the defendants are intended to alienate the suit property, therefore, by showing their urgency they prayed for early hearing of the case and the trial Court has considered the application filed by the plaintiff without hearing the defendants and taken up the case for hearing on 11/03/2026 itself and passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain the status-quo with respect to the suit property till the decision on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and would submit that before passing any interim order the trial Court should have heard the defendants but no notice has been issued for preponement of the date of hearing nor the defendants have been heard before passing of the order of the status-quo, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the learned trial Court may be directed to decide the application. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. True it is that on 18/03/2026 when the application has been filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the case was fixed for 23/03/2026 for deciding of the said application and for argument on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Order-sheets further show that on 11/03/2026 the plaintiffs have filed an application for preponment of the case and for urgent hearing of the case showing their urgency that the defendants are trying to alienate the suit property and considering the same the case was taken up for hearing on 11/03/2026 and the trial Court directed the parties to maintain the stauts-quo with 4 / 4 respect to the suit property till the decision on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and the case was further fixed for 23/03/2026 as has already been fixed on the earlier occasion. In the present writ petition the petitioners have not filed any order-sheet after 11/03/2026. Further, the petitioners are having liberty to make suitable application before the learned trial Court against the order dated 11/03/2026. In the present writ petition the petitioner could not demonstrate as to whether after passing of order dated 11.03.2026, any order existed before the learned trial Court or not. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned trial Court directing the parties to maintain the status-quo with respect to the suit property till the decision on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, therefore, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present writ petition and interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to decide the application filed by the parties expeditiously as early as possible. SD/- SD/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE ashu