1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 398 of 2026 Santoshi Sahu W/o. Manoj Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village Hathani, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Suraj Kumar Sahu S/o. Rambihari Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o. Village Pendri, Post Tarenga, Tahsil Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Anandram Sahu S/o. Late Shri Ramgopal Sahu R/o.- Parshuram Ward, Bhatapara, District Balodabzar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Nirmala Sahu D/o. Late Shri Ramgopal Sahu R/o.- Parshuram Ward, Bhatapara, District Balodabzar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 17.04.2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.04.22 10:29:51 +0530 2 Bhatapara in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 02/2025, whereby the Misc Civil Appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the defendant No. 2 before the learned trial Court and the present Respondent No. 2 and 3 are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit land total area 0.684 Hec. and a house situated over it at Village- Hathini, Tahsil- Bhatapara and also the land of total Area 2.809 Hec. situated at Village- Pendri. The claim of the plaintiffs are based on the fact that the suit property was owned by one Balaram Sahu who has died issueless. The plaintiffs are the brother and sister of Lata Balaram Sahu. Balaram has died on 18.12.2019 and after death of Balaram, when the plaintiffs have filed application for mutation of their names in revenue record in place of Lata Balaram Sahu, they came to know that the defendant No. 1 is also claiming the suit property on the basis of a will allegedly executed by Lata Balaram Sahu in his favour and the revenue proceeding for mutation is pending before the Tehsildar- Bhatapara. Denying the said will and claimed to be forged one, the plaintiffs have filed the civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In the plaint, it is also pleaded that the defendant No. 2 is the licensee of the plaintiffs and also claiming to be the adopted daughter of Late Balaram Sahu claimed her title over the suit property. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff against both the defendants claiming their own title. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed an application under Order 39 Rule, 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. During pendency of the suit, the defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply to the application of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, separately and pleaded about their 3 respective claim. The defendant No. 1 has claimed his title on the basis of the will dated 31.05.2019 allegedly executed by the Late Balaram Sahu and the defendant No. 2 claimed to be adopted daughter of Late Balaram Sahu. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, while deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiffs, the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC vide order dated 20.12.2021. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 20.12.2021 has also been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide its order dated 29.09.2023. 5. The defendant No. 1 has also filed a counter claim in the suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming his own right and title over the property and also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, for grant of temporary injunction with respect to alienation of suit property during pendency of the suit. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the defendant No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and restrain the parties from alienation till the final disposal of the suit vide its order dated 18.02.2025. The said order has been challenged by the defendant No. 2 before the learned appellate Court by filing her misc. appeal which has also been dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2025 and the same is under challenged in the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court has erred in passed impugned order of restraining the 4 respondent from alienating the suit property. In view of an specific provision provided under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, which specifically provided the principles of lis pendens, there is no need to pass any specific order and therefore, the impugned order restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property is bad in law. The petitioner is in possession of suit property and by restraining her from alienating the suit property would cause prejudice on her right and title. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in FA No. 109/2012 order dated 20.12.2012 and would submit that when a specific provision is there with respect to alienation of the suit property, till the pendency of the suit property, no order restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property can be passed. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the impugned order. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 10. Before going into merits of the case it would necessary to notice here the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC which is reproduce as under:- 1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted - Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise- 5 (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to "(defrauding] his creditors, [(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit.] the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. 2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.- (1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right. 6 (2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit. 11. Order 39 Rule 1 (a) of CPC, clearly provides that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger or being wasted damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree or, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act. 12. True it is that the Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provides the principles of lis pendens, however, to avoid any further complications and multiplicity of the suit, the Court is empowered to restrain the parties from alienation of the suit property. 13. On a pointed query being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, the petitioner is going to alienate the suit property or not, he would reply that the petitioner is not willing to alienate the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 14. From perusal of the order impugned, the learned trial Court, under the facts and circumstances of the case and rival claims of the parties, restrained the parties from alienation of the suit property till the adjudication of the suit and that has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. 15. From perusal of the entire material annexed with the petition, I do not find any palpable infirmity or illegality in the order passed by learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court and the petitioner also could not demonstrate any satisfactory ground to interfere with the 7 impugned order passed by learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika