##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5249

SHOAIBDbAyNig SWitHa AlORyA sIBigned

ANWAR D21+07a 02:t 54e6 34:. 00:519.30

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MA No. 226 of 2025

Venkat Rao S/o Kondaya Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 10/a

Street No.28, Sector-07 Bhilai District- And Tehsil Durg (C.G.)

... Appellant

versus

1 - Smt. Udasa Bai W/o Shri Har Prashad Sahu Aged About 59 Years

Respondent R/o Block- 1, Khamhariya, Jewra Sirsa Durg District- And

Tehsil Durg (C.G.)

2 - Har Prashad Sahu Respondent R/o Block-1, Khamhariya Jewra

Sirsa Durg, District- And Tehsil Durg (C.G.)

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, District- Rajnandgaon

(C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant :Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1 :Shri Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate

For Respondent/State :Shri Lekhram Dhruv, Panel Lawyer.

2

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

Order on Board

30.01.2026

1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred the present appeal under

Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being

aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the

learned District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit

No. 25A/2024 (Venkat Rao v. Smt. Udasi Bai and Others),

whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed

by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC

seeking grant of ad-interim injunction.

2. The appellant/plaintiff instituted a civil suit before the learned

Trial Court seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed

dated 30.06.2022 and permanent injunction in respect of land

situated at Village Charbhatha, PH No.-10, Tehsil & District

Rajnandgaon, bearing Khasra Nos. 642/4, 644/3, 713 and

714/1, admeasuring 1.810 hectares (4.47 acres) pleading inter

alia that the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.

18,00,000/-, which was agreed to be paid in full on the date of

registration through cheque. On the assurance of

respondents No.1 and 2 that the entire consideration would

3

be duly paid, the appellant executed the registered sale deed

in favour of respondent No.1.

3. The plaintiff further pleaded that the cheque issued towards

the sale consideration was dishonoured and despite repeated

requests and demands, respondents No.1 and 2 deliberately

avoided payment. It was contended that respondent No.1

fraudulently secured ownership of the appellant’s land

without payment of consideration and on the basis of the

impugned sale deed, a mutation order dated 14.12.2022 was

passed. The appellant has challenged both the sale deed and

the mutation order as illegal, void and liable to be cancelled.

4. The defendant filed his written statement denying and

disputing all the averments made in the plaint. It was

specifically pleaded that the appellant is wilfully avoiding

acceptance of the legitimate sale consideration, despite the

respondents being continuously ready and willing to make

payment. The defendants averred that after dishonour of the

cheque and receipt of the legal notice issued by the appellant,

they duly replied thereto and requested the appellant to

furnish his bank account details for immediate transfer of the

sale consideration through RTGS. It was further contended

4

that the appellant deliberately failed to provide the requisite

bank details, which clearly demonstrates his mala fide

intention to avoid receiving the sale consideration.

5. Along with the suit the appellant/plaintiff filed an application

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, pleading that he had sent a legal notice dated

22.07.2022 through his counsel calling upon respondent No.1

to treat the sale deed dated 30.06.2022 as void. It was alleged

in the said application that despite receipt of the said notice,

respondent No.1 failed to take any corrective steps and

fraudulently obtained mutation of the entire 4.47 acres of land

without payment of any sale consideration. The appellant

further stated that he has also initiated criminal proceedings

against the respondents by filing an application under Section

156(3) of the CrPC. The appell