1 2026:CGHC:19592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 143 of 2023 Jagdish Narayan Shukla S/o Lt. Shri Rammanohar Shukla, Aged About 81 Years R/o 467 A, Sector- Shahpura, Bhopal 39, District Bhopal (M.P.) Appellant(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Dist. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Sunil Kumar Jain, S/o Lt. Shri Mohan Lal Jain, Aged About 56 Years R/o- C- 293, Vallabh Nagar, Raipur Dist. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3 - Smt. Vinti Awasthi, W/o Shri Prashant Awasthi, Aged About 45 Years R/o A-302 C, Queen Heritage, Pump Bidge Road, Moraj Residency, Sector-18 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai, Dist.- Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra) 4 - Ghanshyam Shukla S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Shukla, Aged About 45 Years R/o 467 A, Sector- Shahpura, Bhopal 39, Dist. Bhopal (M.P.). 5 - Rahul Kumar Shukla, Aged About 38 Years R/o 467 A, Sector- Shahpura, Bhopal 39, Dist.- Bhopal (M.P.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anjay Mishra, Advocate For Resp No.1 : Mr. Malay Jain, PL For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate through VC RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.04.29 14:28:12 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 28/04/2026 1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the learned XIth Additional District Judge, Raipur, District & Sessions Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 02-B/2022, whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC filed by Respondent No.2/plaintiff has been allowed and the appellant/defendant No. 1 has been restrained from creating any sale or dispossessing the suit property during the pendency of the money recovery suit, erroneously treating the property of the appellant as the suit property 2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of money alleging that defendants No.1 and 2 are the owners of land bearing Khasra No. 231/03 admeasuring 28,000 sq. ft. situated at Mouza Shaddu, P.H. No. 109/44, Tahsil and District Raipur, which has been referred to as the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants proposed to sell the said land to him at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-, pursuant to which an agreement to sell dated 22.01.2019 was executed in the presence of witnesses, wherein defendant No.3 signed on behalf of defendant No.2 as power of attorney holder. The plaintiff alleged that a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid as earnest money, partly in cash and partly through RTGS, and the defendants assured to provide necessary documents and execute the sale deed; however, thereafter they avoided 3 performance. Upon measurement through an engineer, the land was found to be less than the agreed area and certain discrepancies were noticed in the documents, including existence of construction over a portion of the land, which according to the plaintiff amounted to concealment and fraud. It was further alleged that the defendants issued cheques towards refund, which were dishonoured, leading to complaints before the police authorities. 3. On the other hand, the defendants denied the allegations, contending that no such earnest money was received and that the amount in question was a loan transaction between the parties, disputing the existence and validity of the agreement. 4. During pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction, which came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court, holding that a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury existed in favour of the plaintiff, and consequently restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property during pendency of the suit. Hence, this appeal by the defendant No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit instituted by the plaintiff is essentially for recovery of money and, therefore, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restraint against alienation of the property or creation of third party interest was not maintainable. It is contended that the learned Trial 4 Court has erred in granting injunction in respect of the property, which is not the subject matter of the money recovery suit, and that even in the event of the suit being decreed, the plaintiff would be at liberty to recover the decretal amount from other assets of the defendants. Hence, the impugned order granting injunction is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in granting temporary injunction. It is further submitted that despite the order of injunction, the defendants have proceeded to alienate the suit property in favour of a third party, which itself demonstrates their conduct and justifies the grant of interim protection. It is also submitted that due to pendency of the present appeal and calling of the trial court record, the proceedings of the suit have remained stalled. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that the record of the Trial Court is attached with the present appeal and, therefore, the proceedings before the Trial Court have not progressed and the suit is still pending. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the suit is of the year 2022, this Court is of the view that expeditious disposal of the suit would meet the ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned order dated 31.01.2023, the present appeal stands disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to conclude the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 5 02-B/2022 within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to cooperation by both the parties. 10. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit the record to the concerned Trial Court. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 15.05.2023. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul