NAFR RJAATGHVENDRADsRJA iA igg T nG iteH adl V by EyNDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 309 of 2025 Judgment Reserved on: 28.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 15.1.2026 • Firoz Mohammad S/o Kuddus Mohammed Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Malga, Post- Bhatagaon Tahsil- Bhaiyathan District-

Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s)

versus

1. Tanveer Alam S/o Mohd. Mahmud Alam Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Textile Business (Tanbir Garments Shop No-16, Mini Stadium Pratappur), R/o Village- Khorma Post - Pratappur, P.S.

And Tahsil- Pratappur District- Surajpur (C.G.).

2. The Chief Executive Officer Nagar Panchayat Pratappur, District-

Surajpur (C.G.).

3. Azad Ansari S/o Gafur Ansari Aged About 38 Years R/o Amandon Post- Pratappur, P.S. And Tahsil- Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.).

4. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surajpur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Judgment

1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated

20.8.2025 where by the application filed by the applicant/defendant No. 3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected by the learned trial Court while holding that the matter is at the stage of evidence and as such the same cannot be decided without evidence.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pratappur, District- Surajpur, C.G. as well as the applicant herein along with one Azad Ansari and State of Chhattisgarh.

3. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit shop which has been allotted to the present applicant/defendant No. 3 as it was earlier allotted to defendant No. 2 by the Nagar Panchayat, Pratappur way back in the year 2000, however, it has been handed over to the plaintiff for running the same while executing an agreement dated 2.9.2008, the defendant No. 2 in the month of October, 2014 has told to one Maksud Alam in whose favour the shop was required to be mutation proceedings are not likely to be affected his name as such he is required to be vacated the said shop.

4. The plaintiff who is running his shop was assured by defendant No. 2 on the basis of agreement dated 20.10.2014 that he can run his business he will not be evicted. The plaintiff based on the aforesaid fact has running his business and his possession of the said shop. Thereafter, subsequently, the said shop was allotted to defendant No. 3/applicant subsequently eviction notices were issued to the plaintiff dated 17.8.2021 and 4.5.2022 as such cause of action arose to the plaintiff for filing the said suit as such suit has been filed.

5. It has been stated by the plaintiff that notice under Section 80 is required to be issued, however, due to urgency application under Section 80 (2) has been filed.

6. The defendant No. 3 has filed his written statement while mentioning this fact that the suit as framed and filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.

7. The other defendants has also filed their written statement while denying the plaint averments.

8. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Prattappur has stated that the plaintiff is not having any right to seek relief of injunction no agreement executed between the Nagar Panchayat, Prattappur and the plaintiff.

9. The defendant No. 3 has further filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC while stating that under the C.G. Municipalities Act, 1961 no suit is maintainable against the officers of the municipalities or municipalities itself no civil suit is maintainable. It has been stated that under Section 318 and 319 (1) of the said act the civil suit is barred and it is not maintainable. Further, without any prior notice to the Nagar Panchayat, Prattappur the suit has been filed therefore too it is not maintainable. If any order has been passed in respect of allotment of the shop the same cannot be challenged in the civ