CGHC010271182026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 844 of 2026 Dharmendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Mohan Singh Aged About 62 Years R/o 1st Floor, Mig-C/456 Behind Vishwadeep School, Ward No. 45, Padmanabhpur, Tahsil And District- Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus Satendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Mohan Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Mig-C/456 Behind Vishwadeep School, Ward No. 45, Padmanabhpur, Tahsil And District- Durg, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri PR Patankar, Advocate For Respondent : None appears ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the 3rd District Judge, District-Durg, CG in Civil Appeal No.RCA/77/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 rule 5 of the CPC has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was the defendant before the learned trial Court, where the respondent is prosecuting the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and possession over Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.07.17 18:34:11 +0530 Wp227 844 of 2026 2 the suit property (house), which is situated at MIG-456, Padmanabhpur, Durg. After trial of the suit, decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the suit property vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2024. Petitioner had challenged the said judgment and decree by filing a regular First Appeal- RCA77 of 2024 before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Durg which is presently pending before the learned 3rd District Judge, Durg for its consideration. At the time when the appeal was filed by the petitioner, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC has also been filed along with appeal and the said appeal is pending since 04.04.2024 in which the respondent has made appearance on 28.06.2024 and thereafter, the case was fixed for final hearing from 15.07.2024 till date. The proceeding of the appeal was adjourned from time to time, however, application filed by the petitioner was not decided for one or the other reason. However, on 01.07.2026, respondent had filed reply to the application filed by the petitioner and then, on 02.07.2026, learned First Appellate Court rejected the application of the petitioner and again fix the case for final hearing. He would further submit that admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the suit property and his statutory First Appeal is pending before the First Appellate Court and if, during pendency of the First Appeal, he would be dis-possessed in execution of the decree, he would face irreparable loss, and he would be deprived from his property. The subject property is the ancestral property of the parties, for which both of them are claiming their right. He would further submit that there is every possibility of conflicting decisions in execution proceeding as well as the First Appeal filed by the petitioner. Since the First Appeal filed by the petitioner is ripe up for hearing, instead of rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, the learned appellate Court ought to have decide the appeal on its own merits. Wp227 844 of 2026 3 Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the learned Appellate Court may be directed to decide the appeal at the earliest and till then, the possession of the petitioner over the subject property may be protected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The factual matrix of the case that the judgment and decree has been passed by the learned trial Court on 28.02.2024 in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the suit property, filing of the appeal by the defendant before the First Appellate Court on 04.04.2024, which is pending consideration and ripe up for final hearing are not in dispute. The plaintiff has also claimed the possession over the suit property and admittedly, the defendant is in possession of the suit property. When the defendant is in possession of the suit property, a decree has been passed against him to hand over the suit property and he is prosecuting a regular First Appeal, the equity will lie in favour of the defendant judgment debtor side during pendency of the First Appeal, that his possession may be protected to avoid any further controversy in the dispute. 6. Be that as it may, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo as on today till the final adjudication of the first appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned First Appellate Court and the learned trial court is further directed to decide the First Appeal within the stipulated time frame. 7. Accordingly, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the First Appeal filed by the petitioner within three months from today, and till then, the parties Wp227 844 of 2026 4 are directed to maintain status quo as on today with respect to possession over the suit property. 8. The appeal shall be decided by the First Appellate court in accordance with law on its own merits, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 9. Writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma