2026:CGHC:1109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 4 of 2026 Bhola Ram Sahu S/o Late Budhram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Parewadih, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1. Leela Ram Sahu S/o Late Budhram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Parewadih, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

Digitally signed by JYOTI 2. Smt. Dakeshwari D/o Late Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o JYOTI SHARMA SHARMADate:

2026.01.09

10:53:38 Village Parewadih, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

+0530

3. Smt. Leelawati W/o Mohan Sahu Aged About 55 Years D/o Late Budhram Sahu, R/o Village Ranwakurra, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

4. Smt. Dhanbati Bai W/o Late Hori Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years D/o Budhram Sahu, R/o Sankra, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For State/ : Mr. Ritesh Giri, P.L.

Respondent No. 5 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

08/01/2026 Heard.

1. By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC the appellant is challenging the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Dhamtari in Civil Appeal No. 41/2025 whereby and where-under the learned first appellate Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff/ appellant under Order

39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC

2. The plaintiff/ appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 53-A/2016 before the Court of Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhamtari, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of ancestral agricultural land situated at Village Parewadih, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, bearing Khasra Nos. 404, 406 and 419, admeasuring a total area of 1.02 hectares. The case of the appellant was that the suit land is ancestral property of Late Budhram Sahu and that the appellant has been in actual physical possession of the same for several decades.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statements denying the exclusive possession of the appellant. Respondents/ Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 also filed a counter-claim seeking declaration of their respective shares in the suit property. Upon consideration, the learned Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 20.08.2025, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant; however, the counter-claim was partly allowed and it was declared that the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are joint owners to the extent of 1/5th share each in the suit land.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred a First Appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Dhamtari, and also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of operation of the judgment and decree, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2025. Subsequently, the appellant filed another application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC contending that, taking advantage of absence of injunction, the respondents were attempting to alienate the suit land and had executed a sale agreement dated 15.10.2025, thereby creating an imminent threat to the appellant’s possession and rendering the pending appeal infructuous.

5. The respondents opposed the said application by filing their replies, contending inter alia that the appellant had earlier sought temporary injunction during pendency of the suit as well as stay of operation of the decree in appeal, both of which were dismissed on merits, and therefore the application under Order 39 Rules 1 &

2 was not maintainable.

6. The learned Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC by the impugned order dated 2.12.2025, primarily on the ground that in view of dismissal of earlier applications for injunction and stay, the subsequent application was not maintainable. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in the presen