1 CGHC010284912026 2026:CGHC:36429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 990 of 2026 Bhikhu Ram Sahu S/o Shri Santosh Sahu Aged About 41 Years Occupation Agriculture R/o Village Singhauri (Gorakhpur), Police Outpost Dashrangpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Nikhil Singh S/o Dhanesh Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Singhauri (Gorakhpur), Police Outpost Dashrangpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 2 - Dhanesh Singh S/o Late Narayan Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Singhauri (Gorakhpur), Police Outpost Dashrangpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 3 - Pinki Devi W/o Dhanesh Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Singhauri (Gorakhpur), Police Outpost Dashrangpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Mithi D/o Dhanesh Singh Aged About 13 Years (Minor) Through Guardian Father Dhanesh S/o Late Narayan Singh, R/o Village Singhauri (Gorakhpur), Police Outpost Dashrangpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 5 - Bharat S/o Sarjoo Kevat Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Singhauri (Gorakhpur), Police Outpost Dashrangpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 6 - Udhoram S/o Sarjoo Kevat Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Singhauri (Gorakhpur), Police Outpost Dashrangpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 7 - Shanti Bai W/o Aajuram Nai Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Singhauri (Gorakhpur), Police Outpost Dashrangpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.08.17 15:40:52 +0530 2 8 - Jagdish Sahu S/o Kejuram Sahu Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Singhauri (Gorakhpur), Police Outpost Dashrangpur, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 9 - Shivendra Bindal S/o Laxman Bindal R/o Village Than Khamhariya, Police Station And Tehsil Than Khamhariya, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate For Respondent No.10 : Ms. Richa Sahu, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 14/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 04.07.2026 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 01/2026 whereby the miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned 4th Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kabirdham in Civil Suit No. 35A/2025 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff has been affirmed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defendant No.4 in the suit filed by the plaintiff. The respondent No.1 is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, who is prosecuting a suit 3 for declaration of title, partition and possession of his share of the suit property. The suit property is total 7.76 acre of different Khasra numbers situated at village Singhouri. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is his ancestral property and his father, who is the defendant No.1 in the suit, had no right to alienate the suit property alone. He would further submit that the petitioner is the purchaser of one part of the suit property admeasuring total 99 decimal of different Khasra numbers from the father of the plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 27.03.2025. The name of the petitioner has also been effected in the revenue record of the purchased land. The plaintiff has filed the suit challenging partition over the suit property in which the learned trial Court has granted temporary injunction restraining the petitioner (defendant No.4) from interfering with the possession over the suit land for 6 months from the date of passing of the order by the learned trial Court or till the decision of the suit, whichever is earlier. He would also submit that against the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned trial Court, the petitioner had filed the miscellaneous appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which has also been dismissed and affirmed the order passed by learned trial court. He would also submit that since the petitioner is the purchaser of the suit property from the joint ownership of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has not challenged the sale deed executed by his father, therefore, the right of the plaintiff accrued in the part of the suit property which he has purchased and he cannot be restrained from claiming possession over the suit property. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and perversity and the same is liable to be set aside. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Although, the copy of the plaint has not been annexed with the petition, however, from perusal of the impugned orders, it reveals that the respondent No.1, Nikhil Singh, is prosecuting a suit for declaration of title, partition, and possession of the suit property. The total suit property is 7.76 acre of land situated at village Singhouri, out of which the plaintiff is claiming his 1/4th share, which approximately come to 1.94 acre in his share. It is the claim of the plaintiff that his father has sold total 99 decimal of the suit property in favour of the defendant No.4/petitioner through registered sale deed dated 29.03.2025, however, possession was not delivered, and therefore, the purchaser cannot claim possession over the said property. After considering the material produced by the parties before the learned trial Court, they granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant No.4 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The relevant part of the order passed by learned trial Court is the time period for which the interim protection was granted in favour of the plaintiff that is 6 months from the date of passing of the order dated 19.01.2026 or till the adjudication of the suit, whichever is earlier. It transpires that the learned trial Court has passed its order on 19.01.2026 and the 6 months period has already over as on date. Though, the defendant No.4 had challenged the order dated 19.01.2026 before the Appellate Court, however, the appeal has been dismissed on 04.07.2026 and order passed by learned trial Court has been affirmed. There is no any extension of time in which the interim 5 injunction order has been extended or the period has been modified. Even the petitioner could not demonstrate from any document or order sheet of the learned trial Court or even any application that the plaintiff sought any extension of time or the interim order has been extended for any further period. Since the time period for which the temporary injunction was granted by the learned trial Court that is 6 months from the date of 19.01.2026, is already over, and the suit is already pending, I do not find it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the proceeding of the suit and it is expected that parties shall not take any unnecessary adjournment in the suit. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit