Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts unless they are perverse or suffer from material irregularity; issues regarding the authenticity of documents are matters of evidence for trial.

Digitally signed by PAWAN PAWANKUMAR KUMARD 2 10 6a 2 :t 5e 6 1: .0 :22 0.27 NAFR +0530

Order on Board

1. Heard on admission.

2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the order dated 19.12.2025 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2025 by the Principal District Judge, Bemetara, CG. By the order impugned, the learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and affirm the order of Second Civil Judge Junior Division, Bemetara, District Bemetara, CG in Civil Suit No. 47-A of 2025 by which the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant in the civil suit whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs who have filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit property comprised in piece of Khasra No. 1705/4 area 0.08 hectare, situated at Village Berla, P.H. No. 15, R.I.C. Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. It is the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs that the suit property was received by them from their father and is ancestral in nature. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs are residing at Bhilai and upon visiting their village, they found that the petitioner/defendant No. 1 was raising construction over the suit land. On suspicion that the construction was being carried out on the suit property a demarcation was conducted which revealed that the petitioner/defendant No. 1 was encroaching upon the suit property. Consequently, the civil suit was filed along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 filed a reply to the said application denying the averments made therein. The learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 09.10.2025 allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and granted temporary injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant No. 1 from making any construction over the suit property. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned District Judge. However, the said Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed by the impugned order, thereby affirming the order passed by the learned Civil Judge.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour which are the essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction. He contends that the learned Civil Judge has placed reliance upon a demarcation report filed before the trial Court which appears to be a forged and fabricated document. Even on a bare perusal, it is apparent that interpolations have been made and additional lines have been inserted in the recitals of the demarcation report. It is further submitted that the area of the subject land has been altered, and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge, as affirmed by the learned District Judge, are erroneous and unsustainable in law, as none of the aforesaid three ingredients stands satisfied in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged demarcation was conducted behind the back of the petitioner/defendant No. 1, without notice or opportunity of participation. He submits that the petitioner/defendant No. 1 is