The court emphasized the necessity for expedited resolution of civil suits involving ancestral properties to ensure justice is served promptly.

Order on Board

11.07.2025

1) The present petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Surajpur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3/2022, arising out of the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned IVth Civil Judge Class-I, Surajpur in Civil Suit No. 6A/2021, whereby the learned trial Court had allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC moved by the plaintiffs and granted temporary injunction.

2) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 6A/2021 for declaration, partition, and cancellation of sale deed in respect of ancestral property. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed seeking temporary injunction. The learned trial Court allowed the said application, and the appeal preferred against the said order by defendant No. 1 was dismissed by the learned appellate Court.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the suit is pertaining to the issues of ancestral property and rights of co-sharers, which require adjudication on merits. However, in view of the interlocutory proceedings, the matter is being delayed. It is, therefore, prayed that a direction may be issued to the learned trial Court for early disposal of the civil suit.

4) Learned counsel for the respondents would not raise any objection to the above prayer.

5) Heard.

6) Considering the nature of the dispute and the fact that the suit is pertaining to the year 2021, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the suit (6A/2021).

7) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned IVth Civil Judge Class-I, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), to make all endeavours to conclude and decide the pending Civil Suit No. 6A/2021, expeditiously.

8) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.