1 2026:CGHC:17858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 457 of 2026 Ajay Sidara S/o Late Hariram Sidara, Aged About 38 Years R/o Nariyal Kothi Dayalband, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Renu Jogi W/o Late Ajeet Pramod Jogi, Aged About 72 Years R/o Jogi Niwas Block No. 14, House No. 9/39, In Front Of Chief Minister Residence, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G. 2 - Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Awadhram Jaiswal Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 14 Chaurotola Mandhku Darri Tehsil Pendra Road, District-Gpm C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Oraon, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.04.22 11:01:49 +0530 2 20/04/2026 1. Present is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by learned Third District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. A/16/2026 whereby the application for urgent hearing of the suit has been rejected by the learned trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, he is prosecuting a suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendants. The plaintiff has filed the suit on 23.01.2026 before the learned trial Court, in the suit, he has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property and creating third party interest. On 13.02.2026, the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC, however, the said application was rejected on 13.02.2026 itself against which the petitioner had already preferred a WP(227) No. 279/2026 before this Court in which an interim order has been passed in favor of the petitioner restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest and the said writ petition is pending, however, when the plaintiff came to know that the said property has already been alienated before institution of suit by him, he filed an application for urgent hearing of the suit on 06.04.2026 which has been rejected by the learned trial Court. He would further submit that since the suit property has already been alienated by the defendants, the mutation of the name of the purchaser in the revenue record is already under process. He would further submit that if the name of the 3 prospective purchaser would be recorded in the revenue record, the suit land may again be alienated by the concerned parties, therefore, the plaintiff has filed an application for early hearing of the suit but the same has been rejected against which the present writ petition has been filed. He would also submit that though the case has been fixed before the learned trial Court on 24.04.2026, however, the learned trial Court in the garb of the order dated 12.03.2026 passed in WP(227) No. 279/2026, the learned trial Court is not proceeding with the case and waited for further order of this Court, though there is no stay of the further proceeding of the suit, therefore, the learned trial Court may be directed to hear the suit at the earliest. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the record. 4. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the suit for specific performance of the contract has been filed by the petitioner on 22.01.2026 and on 13.02.2026 his application under Order 39 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected by the learned trial Court against which the petitioner has filed WP(227) No. 279/2026 in which on 12.03.2026 an interim order has been passed and the said writ petition is still pending for its consideration. From the order sheets filed by the petitioner annexed at page No. 78 to 85, it transpires that the date of the proceeding has been fixed on 24.04.2026 before the learned trial Court for waiting for further orders of this Court in WP(227) No. 279/2026, it further transpires from the order sheet dated 18.03.2026 that in WP(227) No. 279/2026, the creating of third party interest over the suit property till the next date of hearing has been 4 stayed, however, the further proceeding of the case has not been stayed in the said writ petition. Since, the case has already been fixed before the learned trial Court on 24.04.2026, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceeding of the learned trial Court at this stage and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue their remedy before the learned trial Court by filing appropriate applications. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit