1 CGHC010280072026 2026:CGHC:32446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 683 of 2026 1 - Shivshankar Yadav S/o Late Dhannuram Yadav Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Chindiya Tehsil- Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Ramashankar Yadav S/o Late Dhannuram Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Chindiya Tehsil- Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) 3 - Balkunwar W/o Late Dhannuram Yadav Aged About 74 Years R/o Village - Chindiya Tehsil- Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Akash Yadav S/o Umashankar Aged About 27 Years Cast- Bargah R/o Village Chindiya Tehsil- Patna District- Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Umashankar S/o Late Dhannuram Aged About 50 Years Cast- Bargarh R/o Village - Chindiya Tehsil Patna District- Koriya (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Koriya, District Koriya, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For Non-Applicant No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant No.3 : Ms. Isha Jajodia, P.L. for the State SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.07.31 11:37:52 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. This is an application for recall/modification of the order dated 01.07.2026 passed in MCC No. 486/2026 and to restore the original status quo order dated 16.04.2026. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the respondents No.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, who are prosecuting a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been rejected by the learned trial Court. However, in the Appellate Court, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been allowed and the defendant was restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the subject property. The order passed by the Appellate Court was challenged before this Court in WP227 No. 1163/2025, in which, vide order dated 16.04.2026, this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property as on that day, till disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed an application for modification of the order dated 16.04.2026 passed in WP227 No.1163/2025 by filing MCC No. 486/2026. He would further submit that though the notices have been served upon the non-applicants in that MCC, however, due to their age and poverty, they could not engage their counsel, and therefore, the order was passed on 01.07.2026 by this Court modifying the order 3 dated 16.04.2026 to the extent that the respondents No. 1 and 2, who were the applicants in the MCC No. 486/2026 shall carry out the necessary repairs to the suit house at his own cost and expenses, ensuring that no nuisance, inconvenience or damage is caused to the adjoining properties or to rights of any other person as the suit house appears to be collapsed. He would further submit that under the garb of repair work, the respondents No. 1 and 2 raising new construction over there and they lodged the FIR against the applicant on the same day when they started construction over there on 30.05.2026. He would further submit that by suppressing the material facts before this Court, the respondents No. 1 and 2 obtained an order in their favor, therefore, the order dated 01.07.2026 passed in MCC No. 486/2026 may be set aside and the order dated 16.04.2026 may be restored. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants No.1 and 2 on advance copy opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and would submit that looking to the condition of the suit house, this Court after issuance of notice upon the non-applicants, permitted the respondents No. 1 and 2 to make necessary repairs in their house and except the some part of the roof, the repair work is almost completed. She would also submit that no excess construction has been raised by the respondents No.1 and 2 except the suit house, therefore, the application filed by the applicants may be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. It transpires from the record that in the MCC No. 486/2026, the non- 4 applicants were noticed, however, when no one appeared in their behalf to represent them in the said application, this Court has passed the order permitting the respondents No. 1 and 2 to carry out the necessary repairs to the suit house at their own expenses, ensuring that no nuisance, inconvenience, or damage is caused to the adjoining properties or to the rights of any person. While considering the modification application filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, this Court has also considered the photographs annexed in that application, therefore, under the compelling circumstances and also considering the ongoing rainy season, the respondents No. 1 and 2 were permitted to carry out the necessary repairs in the suit house. At this stage, I do not find any ground to recall the order dated 01.07.2026 and to restore the order dated 16.04.2026. 6. Accordingly, the present application is rejected. 7. However, the applicants are at liberty to raise their grievance before the learned trial Court, if they aggrieved by the additional construction raised by the respondents No.1 and 2, if any, and if such application is being made, the learned trial Court shall decide the application filed by the applicant in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit