1 2026:CGHC:26699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 727 of 2026 1 - Devendra Singh Thakur S/o- Shri Mohar Singh Thakur, Aged About 54 Years R/o- Gol Chouk, Near Mahamaya Hospital, Dangania, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Dipali Thakur, W/o Shri Devendra Singh Thakur, Aged About 48 Years R/o- Gol Chouk, Near Mahamaya Hospital, Dangania, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vijay Bawankar, Son Of Shri Shyam Bawankar, Aged About 36 Years R/o- Shyam Engineering Works, Ful Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sushma Bawankar, W/o- Shri Shyam Bawankar, Aged About 53 Years R/o- Shyam Engineering Works, Ful Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Karmchari Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Raipur, Through The President - Sevakram Pandey, S/o- Gendram Pandey, R/o- H-11, Ravi Shankar University Premises, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Kuber Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Raipur, Through Vice President -Bhakt Bhushan Chandrawanshi, Son Of Late G.L.Chandrawanshi, R/o- E-36, Rohinipuram, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.07.02 10:56:46 +0530 2 5 - Durga Dwivedi, Wife Of Shri Surendra Dwivedi, R/o- H.I.G. -13, Ring Road No. 02, Tatibandh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Isha Tiwari, D/o- Shri Omprakash Tiwari, R/o- Kachna Road, Besides Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Omprakash Tiwari, Son Of Shri R.N. Tiwari, R/o- Kachna Road, Besides Oriental Bank Of Commerce, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 8 - Rukku Khan S/o- Not Known, R/o- Near Karbala Talab, City Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 30/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raipur in Civil Suit No. 63A/2024, whereby an interim order has been passed and the parties to the suit have been restrained from raising any construction over the subject land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though by the order dated 19.09.2025, the learned trial Court has decided the 3 application I.A. No. 1/2024 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, however, he is not challenging the said part of the order but he is challenging only that part of the order by which the injunction has been granted against the parties to the suit. 4. He would further submit that by the order dated 19.09.2025, the present petitioners have been added as the defendants No.7 and 8 in the suit. Much before their impleadment in the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC on 16.02.2024, when the suit was filed by the plaintiff. The said application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has not been decided till date. He would further submit that, during the pendency of the suit, various applications have been decided including the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is filed by the plaintiff before impleading the petitioners as the defendants No.7 and 8 in the suit and he was not provided any opportunity of hearing on the said application and on the date of 19.09.2025, when they have been directed to be impleaded in the suit, an injunction order has been passed by the learned trial Court, without there being any application filed by any of the parties. He would also submit that the case was also not posted for temporary injunction but the case was posted for orders on the application of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. The petitioners are the subsequent purchasers of the suit and by the impugned order of temporary injunction, their right are being prejudiced, as they have been restrained from raising construction over the subject land. Since, on the same day when the petitioners were directed to be impleaded in the suit, the injunction order was passed, 4 they were not in knowledge of the said order and subsequently when they came to know about the injunction order, they are challenging it. He would also submit that, earlier also, the learned trial Court has passed the temporary injunction order on 16.06.2025, and thereafter, on an application being filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, the order dated 16.06.2025 was recalled and ex-parte temporary injunction order has been set aside. Since, the order of temporary injunction dated 19.09.2025 seriously prejudiced the right of the petitioners, that part of the order may be set aside by allowing the present writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. The main grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is the order dated 19.09.2025 by which a temporary injunction order has been passed by the learned trial Court against the parties. It transpires from the order sheet dated 19.09.2025, that to avoid the multiplicity of the suit, the learned trial Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC and to avoid any further complications in the suit, directed the parties to get their land demarcated and till then, the parties have been restrained from raising any construction over the suit property. It further transpires from the order sheet of the learned trial Court that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is still pending for its consideration and even after various dates of hearing, the said application has not been decided since 16.02.2024. 7. Be that as it may, since the learned trial Court exercised its discretion under Section 151 of CPC and restrained the parties not to raise any 5 construction over the subject land and the case is still fixed for considering the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, without going into merits of the case, it would deem appropriate to direct the learned trial Court to decide the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 pending since 16.02.2024, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within the stipulated time frame. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC on its own merits, in accordance with law, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of two months from the next date fixed before it. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit