1 2026:CGHC:24823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 587 of 2026 1 - President/secretary, Maharshi Valmiki Ramjanki Seva Samiti, Gram- Turturiya, Tahsil- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Rambalak Das Vaishnav S/o Late Ramkishore Vaishnav Aged About 70 Years Caste- Bairagi, R/o Ward No.6, Turturiya, Tahsil- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - President/Secretary Matagarh Valmiki Ashram Trust Turturiya, Tahsil- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). 3 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District-Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri K.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Akash Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Shri Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 18.06. 202 6 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the IIIrd District Judge, Baloda Bazar, in Misc. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.06.22 16:41:47 +0530 2 Civil Appeal (Filing) No.317 of 2026 whereby the application under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioners for a direction to the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are prosecuting a suit before the trial court for declaring the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the SDO (R) Kasdol as null and void and also for permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs over Maharshi Balmiki Ashram (in short, the Ashram) and Ram Janki Mandir Turturiya (in short, the Temple). He would further submit that one Chinta Ram Tikariya constructed the said Ashram at village Turtirya in the year, 1970 and also constructed a Temple. The Temple was renovated also in the year 1974 by one Daulat Ram Tikariya. Chinta Ram Tikariya was Malgujar of village Udgahan and during his lifetime, he took care of said Ashram and Temple. He employed one Ram Kishore Das as Priest of the temple. After his death, his son Ram Balak Das was the Priest of said temple. After death of Daulat Ram Tikariya, his son Hemant Tikariya was managing the affairs of the temple. A committee was also formed in the year, 2014 for managing the affairs and service in the temple and it was continued without any indifference. On 01.09.2025, the defendant No.1 along with his 40-50 muscleman forcefully entered into the Ashram and after putting lock in the rooms of the Ashram they possessed the same and thrown the plaintiffs out of Ashram. They threatened them that now the Trust has been formed and they will not permit them to reside there. When the plaintiffs sought information from the office of SDO, Revenue, Kasdol, they came to 3 know that on 09.11.2022, the SDO, Kasdol has passed an order forming a public Trust of the said Temple. The persons of vicinity were under knowledge that the management of the Ashram and Temple was being done by the plaintiffs, yet they have not been made party in the proceeding of forming a public Trust and without hearing them the order has been passed by the SDO which is null and void. The defendants 1&2 collided with each other and got an order passed by defendant No.2. The plaintiffs are residing over the subject property since 40-45 years and constructed house thereupon, but by forcefully possessing the property and throwing the plaintiffs out there would prejudice their rights. Therefore, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs. 3. He would also submit that in the suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has also been filed for grant of temporary injunction, but the said application has been rejected by the trial court on 11.03.2026 holding that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is not found in favour of the plaintiffs. The order passed by the trial court dated 11.03.2026 was challenged by the plaintiffs before the appellate court by filing Misc. Appeal. In the said Misc. Appeal, an application under Section 151 CPC has also been filed for maintaining status quo with respect to physical possession of the suit property till adjudication of their appeal, but the said prayer for maintaining status quo has been rejected by the appellate court and allowed the prayer for service of summons upon the defendants through Special Process Server which is under challenge in the present writ petition. He would also submit that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit property and the defendants have 4 threatened to dispossess them. The entire household articles and utensils are there in the subject house which is in possession of the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs would be dispossessed from the subject property, they would become shelter lees as they have no other alternative accommodation for their residence. They are residing there since 40-45 years; they constructed the Ashram on their own expenses to serve the public as well as Temple. In the garb of forming a public trust over there, the defendants are trying to encroach the subject property. The formation of public trust is without notice to the plaintiffs who were managing the affairs of the temple and Ashram. Therefore, till decision of the appeal pending before the appellate court, the parties may be directed to maintain status quo with respect to physical possession over the suit property. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.1 objected and submits that from the contents of plaint itself the plaintiffs have disclosed that the defendants came into possession of the suit property in the year 2022 itself. Since 2022 till 2025, the plaintiffs did nothing and the suit has been filed in the year 2025. Therefore, there is no extreme urgency in the case for granting maintaining status quo as the plaintiffs are not in possession of suit property. A public trust has been formed by due process of law by the order of SDO Revenue dated 09.11.2022. One cannot expect that the order dated 09.11.2022 was not in knowledge of the plaintiffs. It has various procedure before passing the order and after having considered necessity to form a pubic trust, the SDO Revenue has passed the order on 09.11.2022. He would further submit that Misc. Appeal of the petitioners is already 5 pending before the Appellate Court and they can pursue for final adjudication of their appeal, but to claim the order of status quo, the intention of the plaintiffs are clear that they only want to get the proceedings delayed by one or other reason. Since no prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss was found by the trial court and Misc. Appeal of the plaintiffs was pending, therefore, no order of status quo can be passed in the case and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 6. From perusal of copy of plaint annexed with the petition it transpires that the plaintiffs are claiming that they are residing over the suit property since 40-45 years and they constructed the said Ashram and Temple at village Turturiya. The plaintiff No.2 Ram Balak Das is a Priest since 40-45 years and residing there in the Ashram. It is also the pleadings of the plaintiffs that the said Ashram and Temple was constructed in the year 1970 by Chinta Ram Tikariya and subsequently his son Daulat Ram Tikariya got renovated the said Ashram and Temple in the year 1974. Earlier one Ram Kishore Das was the Priest and thereafter the present plaintiff No.2 is the Priest of the said Temple. It is also pleaded that on 01.09.2025 the defendant No.1 possessed the Ashram and Temple forcefully along with 40-45 other person and thrown the plaintiffs out of Ashram and Temple. When the plaintiffs are claiming to be in possession of said Ashram and Temple since 40-45 years, the case of plaintiffs requires consideration as they claim that before formation of the trust, the management of the Ashram and 6 Temple was being done by the plaintiff No.2 and son of Chinta Ram Tikariya namely Hemant Tikariya. In the year 2014 a formal committee was constituted for management of the affairs of the Ashram and Temple. Before formation of the trust definitely some one must be taking care of the Ashram and Temple which is the claim of the plaintiffs that they are the persons who were taking care of the temple and Ashram, however, at the time of formation of trust they were not heard and noticed by the competent authority. 7. From perusal of the order dated 09.11.2022 it further transpires that 10 persons made an application for formation of the trust of the said Ashram and Temple situated at village Turturiya. The said 10 persons were declared to be the trustee of said public trust, however, the petitioner No.2 was not made as party either applicant or non applicant in the said proceeding. 8. Be that as it may, since the petitioners/plaintiffs are claiming that they are in possession of the suit property since 40-45 years, they constructed house there and residing, their utensils are inside the rooms, however, they cannot be forcefully thrown out from the said property and therefore the appellate court should have considered the prayer of the petitioners for maintaining status quo with regard to possession of the suit property till final adjudication of their appeal pending before it. 9. The claim of the petitioners are limited only to the extent that till adjudication of their appeal pending before the appellate court, status quo shall be maintained by the parties with respect to their possession over the suit property. The claim of the plaintiffs on merits are still 7 pending before the trial court and the appeal is limited only to the extent of deciding that application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for which they are claiming status quo till adjudication of their appeal. 10. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, considering the documents annexed with the writ petition and the claim of the petitioners, this court is of the considered opinion that it would deem it appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo with respect to possession of the suit property till the final adjudication of the appeal pending before the appellate court. The appellate court is further directed to decide the appeal pending before it within three months from the next date fixed before it in accordance with law on its own merits after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Till decision of the said appeal, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to physical possession of the suit property as it exits today. 11. Consequently, that part of the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the appellate court with respect to rejection of the prayer of maintaining status quo, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder