2025:CGHC:18306 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 362 of 2025  Domar Singh Verma S/o Late Shri Jagannath Verma Aged About 80 Years R/o Ward No. 43, Kasaridih, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. Rajaram Baghel S/o Late Chandulal Baghel Aged About 91 Years Agriculturist Of Village Bhibhauri, Tahsil- Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) Present Address- Village Dangania, Teacher Colony, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.)

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate For State/ Respondent : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, P.L.

No. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

23-04-2025

1) The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Misc. Appeal No. 52-A/2024 dated 14.02.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 28.06.2024 has been affirmed.

2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title and specific performance of contract based on the agreement dated 20.09.2001 wherein respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell his land bearing Khasra No. 605 situated at Village - Bhibhauri, Tehsil- Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.) ad-measuring 0.664 hectares for the sale consideration of Rs. 24,600/-. The petitioner moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC inter-alia on the ground that if the suit property is alienated, it would invite a multiplicity of cases. It is also stated in the application that prima-facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of the petitioner. Learned trial Court vide order dated 28.06.2024 allowed the application. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the learned First Additional District Judge, Raipur which was allowed vide order dated 14.02.2025 and against that order, the instant petition has been preferred.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for temporary injunction was allowed by the learned trial Court as the prima-facie case was in favor of the petitioner. He further submits that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury which could not be compensated in terms of money were also in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the learned trial Court allowed the application. He contends that there was an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 dated 20.09.2001; respondent No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and; the petitioner was ready and willing to perform his part, therefore, the petitioner filed the civil suit. He further contends that from 2001 till 2022, the petitioner has developed the suit property and during the pendency of the civil suit, respondent No. 1 may create a third-party interest, therefore, this petition may kindly be allowed and the order passed by the learned appellate Court dated

14.02.2025 may be set-aside.

4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes.

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents available on the record.

6) Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and specific performance of contract. An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 20.09.2001 and for a long 21 years, no steps were taken by the petitioner against respondent No. 1 to execute the sale deed. Though it is pleaded in the plaint that the petitioner was ready and willing to perform his part but the conduct of the petitioner would show that he slept over his rights for a long 21 years.

7) In order to claim a relief of temporary injunction, the petitioner has to prove (i) prima-facie case; (ii) a strong likelihood of success and (iii) the contract/agreement is valid and enforceable. The burden is