2025:CGHC:29280 Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR D 20a 2te 5: .07.04 NAFR

11:52:53 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 576 of 2025  Jhanik Ram Chouhan S/o Manglu Chouhan Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Godhi, Thana Tamnar, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. Om Prakash S/o Son Sai Aged About 50 Years R/o Village -Godhi, Thana -

Tamnar, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

2. Khirsagar S/o Son Sai Aged About 55 Years At Present R/o Chitwahi, Thana Tamnar, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

3. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

01 . 07.2025

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

“10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue calling the relevant records pertaining to case of the petitioner from the court below concerned for its kind perusal.

10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue to setting aside the order dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Second Civil Judge Sr. Division, Raigarh, Link Court- Gharghoda, District Raigarh passed in Civil Suit No. 71- A/2024, and in effect, allow the application filed under Order 23 Rule 1(3)(b) of CPC (Annexure P-5) in toto, in the interest of justice and facts and circumstances of the case.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case.

10.4 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property described in Schedule A and also sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the defendants/respondents be directed not to interfere with the possession. He would further submit that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property bearing survey No. 485/1 measuring 15 decimals situated at village Godhi, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh. He would also submit that taking advantage of the old age of the petitioner, on 21.10.2024, respondents No. 1 & 2 armed with clubs and sticks destroyed the fence as well as the vegetables sown on the suit property and started raising permanent construction over it. He would contend that in view of the above, the petitioner in addition to the captioned suit for declaration and prohibitory injunction filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for the grant of temporary injunction.

He would further contend that on 20.11.2024, a summons was issued to the defendants and on 07.12.2024, they appeared before the learned Court below. He would also contend that as the defendants were raising permanent construction, an application for urgent hearing was also moved along with an application under Section 151 of CPC for the grant of status- quo but the said application was rejected vide order dated 13.12.2024. He would argue that on 19.12.2024, respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a reply to the application for the grant of temporary injunction and the matter was posted for arguments on the said application on 27.12.2024. It is further argued that on account of the non-availability of the Presiding Officer, the matter was adjourned for 06.01.2025 and it was again adjourned on 06.03.2025. It is also argued that on 07.02.2025, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1(3) (b) of CPC seeking withdrawal of the suit with the liberty to file a fresh suit on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff by raising permanent construction.

Mr. Agrawal would further aver that respondents N