1 CGHC010339322026 2026:CGHC:39592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1168 of 2026 1 - Smt. Rajni Tiwari W/o Ghanshyam Tiwari, Aged About 44 Years Gulmohar Dhaba, Mopka, Tah. And Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ramayan Kashyap S/o Ramgopal Kashyap Aged About 60 Years (Wrongly Written As Ghanshyam Prasad Tiwari), Aged About 60 Years (Wrongly Written As 90 Years), Mopka, Tah. And Dist Bilaspur, (C.G.) 2 - Dujram, Nawagaon, Malhar, Tah. Masturi, Dist, Bilaspur, (C.G.) 3 - Dheeraj, Nawagaon, Malhar, Tah. Masturi, Dist, Bilaspur, (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Durga, Takhatpur, Tah. Seepat Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 5 - Paramila, Baniyadih , Tah. Seepat Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 6 - Smt. Anita Bijour, Tah. And Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 7 - Smt. Latelni Bai, Mopka, Tah. And Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 8 - Amol Kunwar, Badi Bazar, Ratanpur, Tah. Kota, Dist Bilaspur, C.G. 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.09.11 10:26:11 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 09.09.2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 13.08.2026 passed by learned 11th District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.42/2026 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, has been rejected. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is prosecuting his first appeal before the learned Appellate Court against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.03.2026 passed by learned 7th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 483/2016. By the said judgment and decree, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and declared them the title holder of the suit property. The sale-deed dated 09.10.2014 has been declared as null and void which was executed in favour of the defendant No. 1/ petitioner and also restrained the respondent No. 1 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. He would further submit that the defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit land and he is challenging the impugned judgment and decree before the learned Appellate Court, the plaintiffs are a keen to get their name mutated in the revenue record on the strength of the impugned judgment and decree and searching the prospective purchaser of the subject property to alienate the same. The learned Appellate Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC on the ground that the provision of Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC is not available to the appellant/ petitioner for staying the mutation 3 proceeding and there is no likelihood of her appeal being infructous, even if, no interim order has been passed in her favour. He would further submit that if the mutation proceedings is completed and the names of the plaintiffs have been mutated in the revenue record, they immediately would alienate the suit property by and then the petitioner would be irreparable loss as she is claiming the suit property through the registered sale deed dated 09.10.2014, therefore, till the pendency of the appeal, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree may be stayed. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of the application filed by the plaintiffs before the Tahsildar, it transpires that on the strength of the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2026, they are prosecuting an application for mutation of their names in the revenue record. The said judgment and decree dated 06.03.2026 is already under challenged before the learned Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the petitioner. Since, the petitioner is already prosecuting an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, the learned Appellate Court instead of dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, may direct the parties to maintain status-quo till the final adjudication of the appeal and decide the appeal in accordance with law in an expeditious manner. Considering the controversy between the parties and apprehension of the petitioner that they may alienate the suit property after getting their name mutated, without entering into merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the parties may be directed to maintain status-quo as on today with respect to the subject property and the 4 learned Appellate Court shall decide the appeal pending before it within three months from the next date fixed before it, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 5. 5. Needless to say that the parties shall also cooperate with the early disposal of the appeal before the learned Appellate Court. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika