1 CGHC010273642026 2026:CGHC:30398 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 116 of 2026 1 - Dhaneshwar Sahu S/o Mantru Ram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Saragaon Tehsil Raipur District- Raipur- C.G. (Plaintiff) ... Appellant versus 1 - Kunj Ram Banjare S/o Fuldas Banjare Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Sarkippar P.H. No 04 R.I.C. Devsundra Tehsil Palari District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Balodabazar District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) (Defendants) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Poulami Das, Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 17/07/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant has preferred the present miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), challenging the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the Second Upper District Judge, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) in Civil Suit No.2A/2026, whereby the application RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.07.21 10:49:55 +0530 2 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected.] [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status shown before the trial Court.] 3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit against defendant No.1 seeking specific performance of contract in respect of the suit land bearing Khasra No.131/8, area 0.2840 hectare along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC stating inter alia that defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the aforesaid suit land for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,78,000/-, out of which he had already received Rs.10,50,000/- from the plaintiff. Despite receiving the said amount, defendant No.1 failed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff prayed that defendant No.1 be restrained from further transferring, alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit land till final decision of the civil suit. 4. Defendant No.1 filed his reply stating inter alia that the agreement to sell was not executed in respect of his land bearing Khasra No.131/8, area 0.2840 hectare rather, he had agreed to sell land bearing Khasra No.141/17, area 0.311 hectare for a total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-, against which the plaintiff had paid only Rs.20,000/-. 5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court, vide impugned order, rejected the application filed by the plaintiff on the ground that there was a dispute regarding the identity of the land agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. Therefore, the essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction were not found to exist in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred the instant appeal. 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that respondent/defendant No.1 executed a written agreement to sell dated 05.05.2025 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land bearing Khasra No.131/8, area 0.2840 hectare, and also received a total sum of Rs.10,50,000/-. Only Rs.28,000/- remains payable towards the total sale consideration. Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff to execute the registered sale deed, defendant No.1 has failed to do so and has unnecessarily raised a dispute regarding the identity of the land agreed to be sold. She further submits that the learned trial Court rejected the injunction application filed by the plaintiff only on this ground. She next submits that there is a reasonable apprehension that defendant No.1 may transfer or alienate the suit land bearing Khasra No.131/8 despite having received Rs.10,50,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.10,78,000/-. However, the learned trial Court, while ignoring the aforesaid facts, dismissed the application which is bad in law. Hence, she prays that the appeal may be allowed, the impugned order be set aside, and the temporary injunction sought by the plaintiff be granted in his favour. 7. Learned State counsel submits that the State is a formal party in the present case. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the alleged agreement to sell dated 05.05.2025, purportedly executed by respondent/defendant No.1, along with a receipt allegedly executed by him. As per the aforesaid document in respect of sale agreement, the plaintiff has allegedly paid a sum of Rs.9 lakhs to the defendant No.1. It is further averred in the 4 plaint that the plaintiff has paid an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to defendant No.1 in his KCC loan account. However, neither is the said agreement dated 05.05.2025 is a registered document, nor does it disclose that possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No.131/8 was delivered to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also not specifically pleaded in his application that defendant No.1 is trying to sell the said suit land or create any third-party rights therein. Merely, on the basis of alleged agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and the alleged payment of the aforesaid amounts, at this stage, it cannot be held that the appellant/plaintiff has established a prima facie case. Consequently, the other two essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, i.e. the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, also cannot be held to be in favour of the plaintiff. 10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, hence, the same is upheld. Consequently, the present miscellaneous appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar