1 2026:CGHC:24787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 663 of 2026 1 - Krishna Balram Padihari S/o Shri Bishikeshan Aged About 33 Years By Caste- Mahanti, R/o Ward No. 1, Kotra Road, Rajeev Nagar, In Front Of Milk Dairy, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Binodni Patnayak D/o Shri Hareram Aged About 61 Years W/o Shri Daitari, By Caste- Mahanti, R/o Ward No. 01, Kotra Road Rajeev Nagar, In Front Of Milk Dairy, Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Bishikeshan Padihari S/o Shri Hareram Aged About 59 Years By Caste- Mahanti, R/o Ward No. 01, Kotra Road Rajeev Nagar, In Front Of Milk Dairy, Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 18/06/2026 Heard. Present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gharghoda, District Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 22-A/2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court and has filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. It is contended that the defendants are making attempts to get their names mutated in the revenue records and, upon such mutation, may create third-party interests over the suit property, thereby adversely affecting the rights of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC seeking ex-parte temporary injunction pending consideration of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 3. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has rejected the 3 said application without properly appreciating the urgency involved in the matter. According to the petitioner, the defendants are interfering with the suit property and are likely to assert possession or alienate the property after obtaining mutation in their favour. It is, therefore, prayed that till disposal of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the parties be directed to maintain status quo with regard to the nature, possession and title of the suit property. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court declined to grant ex-parte ad interim injunction primarily on the ground that mutation proceedings neither confer title nor create any substantive right over the property and, therefore, no such extraordinary urgency exists warranting grant of ex-parte interim protection. Consequently, the application preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC came to be rejected. The principal apprehension expressed by the petitioner is that the defendants may claim possession over the suit property on the strength of mutation entries. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and are maintained primarily for revenue purposes. Mutation by itself does not confer ownership, title or lawful possession over immovable property. The issue of possession and title is required to be adjudicated independently on the basis of evidence led before the competent civil court. 4 6. It is also pertinent to note that the application of the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is already pending consideration before the learned trial Court. Notices have been issued to the defendants and the matter is fixed for hearing. In such circumstances, when the learned trial Court has exercised its discretion and declined to grant ex-parte ad interim relief, this Court does not find any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.06.23 13:48:21 +0530