1 2026:CGHC:17371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 64 of 2026 Phil Minerals Benefication And Energy Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur (A Company Registered Under The Companies Act) 3rd Floor, Mahima Trade Centre Hansa Vihar, Shrikant Marg, Bilaspur Through The Director Pradeep Jha S/o Shri R A Jha, 50 Years, R/o Dipu Para, Tarbahar Colony, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Shivani Chadda W/o Shri Vijay Chadda Aged About 30 Years R/o The Fashion In Fit, Lakhe Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh And E-08 Agroha Society, Sector-2, Ring Road No. 1, Infront Of Deendayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Vijay Kumar Chadda S/o Shri Surendra Mohan Chadda Vijay Trading Company, R/o The Fashion In Fit, Lakhe Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh And E-08 Agroha Society, Sector-2, Ring Road No. 1, Infront Of Deendayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.04.17 11:23:42 +0530 2 For Appellant : Shri Prafull. N. Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Shri Keshav Dewangan and Ms. Mitisha Kotecha, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 16.04.2026 1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 116- A/2025 (Phil Minerals v. Smt Shivani Chadda & Another), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking grant of temporary injunction. 2. (a) The plaintiff has instituted the suit against the defendants seeking a decree for specific performance of contract in respect of Flat No. B-203, situated on the second floor of the apartment known as Wallfort Heights, located at Mouza Bhathagaon, Raipur, admeasuring 163.42 sq. ft. (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”), by directing execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and confirmation of possession already delivered to the plaintiff. In the event the 3 defendants failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff seeks permission to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- before the trial Court and prays that the trial Court execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and confirm his possession. The plaintiff has also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring any right, title or interest in the suit property or creating any third-party rights therein, and from causing any obstruction or interference, either personally or through any other person, in the plaintiff’s possession in future. Alternatively, in the event the relief of specific performance is not granted, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree directing the defendants to pay Rs. 80,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, i.e., Rs. 2 per hundred per month, from 20.07.2022 to 27.04.2024, along with litigation costs. (b) In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff/appellant has also filed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Sections 94(c) and 151 CPC, contending that prior to 18.07.2022, defendants No. 1 and 2 had orally agreed with Pradeep Jha, Director of the plaintiff company, to sell the suit flat. Pursuant 4 to the instructions of defendant Vijay Kumar, an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was transferred from Axis Bank, Bilaspur, to the ICICI Bank account of Vijay Trading Company, Raipur, and the defendants orally agreed to execute the sale deed within one year. Subsequently, upon the defendants demanding an enhancement in the sale consideration from Rs. 80,00,000/-, the parties mutually agreed to fix the consideration at Rs. 85,00,000/-, and accordingly on 27.08.2024, a further amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- was transferred from the plaintiff company’s State Bank account, Bilaspur, to the ICICI Bank account of Vijay Trading Company, Raipur, at the instance of defendant Vijay Kumar. Thus, only Rs. 5,00,000/- remained payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. (c) It is further stated that after payment of Rs. 55,00,000/- through banking channels on 27.08.2024, possession of the suit flat was handed over to the applicant, and since then the appellant has been in possession thereof. In order to enforce the contract, the appellant sent a legal notice by registered post on 06.09.2025, which was received by the defendants on 08.09.2025, but the defendants neither replied to the notice nor showed any willingness to perform the contract. 5 (d) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the defendants entered into an oral agreement to sell the suit flat and received Rs. 80,00,000/- towards part sale consideration, the appellant has a prima facie case, the balance of convenience lies in his favour, and unless restrained, the defendants may transfer the suit property to third parties or interfere with the applicant’s peaceful possession, causing irreparable loss to the plaintiff. Hence, the appellant prays that the defendants be temporarily restrained from transferring any rights in the suit property and from interfering with the appellant’s possession. In support, reliance has been placed upon the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by this Court in M.A. No. 01/2022, M/s Bharat Developers, Raipur v. Santosh Kumar Chelak & Others. 3. The defendants have jointly filed a reply to the said application contending that defendant No. 1 neither knows nor recognizes the plaintiff, and no oral agreement was ever entered into between them, nor was any money received by her. It is stated that defendant No. 1 had let out the suit premises on rent through Rajesh Malve, an officer of the Mining Department residing on the upper floor, on the pretext of his daughter’s 6 marriage, and no rent has been paid since January 2020, in respect of which defendant No. 1 is taking legal action. It is denied that possession of the suit property was ever delivered to the plaintiff, and it is also denied that any legal notice was received. It is further contended that no cause of action has arisen between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, there is no prima facie case, no consideration amount was received by defendant No. 1, possession remains with her, and the balance of convenience is in her favour; thus, no question of irreparable loss to the plaintiff arises. 4. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court by order dated 13.03.2026 dismissed the application application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Sections 94(c) and 151 CPC holding that the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case, as the alleged oral agreement and payment were not supported by reliable evidence, and possession was also not established. It further held that balance of convenience and irreparable injury were not in favour of the plaintiff, and thus rejected the application. 5. (A) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the 7 application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by misappreciating the pleadings and material on record. It is contended that the finding regarding absence of affidavit in support of the agreement is erroneous, as the plaintiff had duly supported his case by way of pleadings and affidavit filed along with the plaint and injunction application. It is further argued that the Trial Court wrongly held that no prima facie case exists merely on the basis of denial by the defendants, while ignoring the categorical admission of Defendant No. 2 regarding receipt of substantial amounts in his firm, namely Vijay Trading Company, though sought to be explained, which aspect is a matter for trial. It is submitted that such admission itself is sufficient at this stage to establish a prima facie case and tilt the balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. The finding regarding absence of proof of possession is also assailed as premature, as the stage of leading evidence has not yet arisen and at the interlocutory stage, the Court is required to consider the pleadings and affidavits on record. (B) It is further contended that the learned Trial Court erred in drawing an adverse inference from the alternative relief of refund, which is a legally permissible and often necessary 8 prayer in suits for specific performance and does not weaken the plaintiff’s case. It is also submitted that the Trial Court failed to consider the pleadings of the defendants themselves, wherein it is indicated that the suit property is not in their possession and is allegedly with a third party, thereby substantiating the plaintiff’s apprehension of dispossession and creation of third-party rights. In the circumstances, it is argued that the plaintiff has established all three essential ingredients, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, as he is in possession of the suit property and has already paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration. The impugned order, being based on misappreciation of pleadings and contrary to settled principles of law, is therefore liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Upon consideration of the pleadings, material available on record and the submissions advanced, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff/appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The alleged agreement for sale is admittedly oral in 9 nature and is not supported by any cogent or independent evidence. No document or affidavit of any witness to the alleged agreement has been placed on record. Though the appellant has relied upon transfer of certain amounts to the account of Vijay Trading Company, there is no reliable material to establish that such transfers were made pursuant to the alleged agreement for sale of the suit property. In absence of such linkage, mere transfer of money cannot, at this interlocutory stage, be treated as sufficient to prima facie prove the existence of a concluded contract. 8. So far as possession is concerned, the Trial Court has rightly observed that except for self-serving affidavits, no material has been produced to establish that possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff. The defendants have categorically denied both the agreement and delivery of possession. In such circumstances, the finding that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The reasoning of the Trial Court is based on proper appreciation of the material available on record and settled principles governing grant of temporary injunction. While 10 rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, the trial Court properly appreciated the conduct of the parties and assigned the sufficient and cogent reasons in the order impugned. The same is just and proper warranting no intereference of this Court. 9. In view of the above, no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court. The order of the learned Trial Court is hereby affirmed. 10. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed in the admission stage itself. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law and on its own merits. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge shoaib/Gowri