1 2026:CGHC:17668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 441 of 2026 1 - Ganesh Prasad Tiwari S/o Dev Narayan Tiwari, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Sonumuda, Nayapara, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Sharda Tiwari Wd/o Late Munesh Tiwari, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Sonumuda, Nayapara, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Dayashankar S/o Late Munesh Tiwari, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Sonumuda, Nayapara, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Nilesh Kumar S/o Late Munesh Tiwari, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Sonumuda, Nayapara, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Usha Tiwari D/o Late Munesh Tiwari, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Sonumuda, Nayapara, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Rajesh Agrawal S/o Late Ramniwas Agrawal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Gourishankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Mukesh Agrawal S/o Late Ramniwas Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Gourishankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. Yoesh Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 17-04-2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.23 10:54:14 +0530 2 been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 22-01-2026 passed by the learned Vth District Judge Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Civil Appeal No.6/2025 whereby the Misc. Appeal filed by respondents No.1 and 2 is allowed and the injunction order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. They are prosecuting a civil suit before the learned trial Court for declaration of their easementary right over the suit property shown in Schedule A annexed with the plaint. The defendants No.1 and 2/respondents No.1 and 2 who are occupants, are claiming to be the title and possession holder of the suit land. Along with the suit the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the suit land as it would cause irreparable loss and their access way to their agricultural land would be obstructed and there is no other access way to approach their agricultural land. Though the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners was objected by the defendants No.1 and 2, but the learned trial Court after hearing the parties directed them not to change the nature of the suit property till final adjudication of the suit vide its order dated 21-03-2025. The said order dated 21-03-2025 was challenged by defendants No.1 and 2/respondents No.1 and 2 before the learned appellate Court by filing their Misc. Appeal which has been allowed by the learned appellate Court on 22-01-2026 and the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 21-03-2025 has been set aside and the same is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that if the defendants No.1 and 2 could be able to raise any construction over the suit land, their access way would be defeated and they would be deprived to approach their agricultural field. He would further submit that they are using the said land as 3 an access way to their field since more than 50 years and even if defendants No.1 and 2 could stop their construction and restrained any construction over there, they would have no loss, however, if they able to raise construction, the petitioners would be in irreparable loss. The learned appellate Court has erroneously considered that the relief claimed by the petitioners is the relief of the final nature which cannot be granted while considering the interim application. However, the same is not in the nature of final relief because the learned trial Court has only stopped them from changing the nature of the suit property till the final adjudication of the suit. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the learned trial Court may be restored. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have no right over the suit property and they are having alternative access way to approach their agricultural field and since they are having alternative access way to approach their agricultural land, they cannot claim their easementary right over the suit land which belongs to respondent No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2. The learned appellate Court has rightly considered the material produced before it and the law applicable to the field, therefore, the same does not require any interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 6. In the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners they claimed that the cause of action arose in the month of April, 2022 when the defendants tried to obstruct their easementary right and started construction over the suit land by raising their boundary wall. In the plaint the plaintiffs have pleaded that they are using the suit land to approach their agricultural field since 1973 and if their 4 access way would be obstructed, they would be in irreparable loss. The defendants No.1 and 2 objected that the plaintiffs are having alternative access way to approach their agricultural field and therefore, they cannot claim the easementary right over their land. Whether or not the plaintiffs are having only access way to approach their agricultural field through the suit land or having any other alternative access way to approach their agricultural field are the subject matter of evidence to prove the same by the parties concerned during trial of the suit. However, this Court considered that if any construction would be raised over the suit property, it would definitely prejudice claim of the petitioners if ultimately they would be succeeded in the suit. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the pleadings of the parties and the documents annexed with the petition, this Court is of the opinion that instead of considering the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the parties concerned to maintain status quo over the suit property as on today till the final adjudication of the suit and the learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible within a stipulated period as the parties have stated that today the matter is fixed for recording plaintiffs’ evidence 8. Accordingly, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today with respect to the suit property and the learned trial Court is also directed to conclude the trial of Civil Suit No.19A/2023 within six months from today in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 9. With the aforesaid observations the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil