Order on Board

1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 18.03.2026, passed by the learned 4th District Judge, Raipur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14/2025, whereby the misc. appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Senior Division, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2023, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court. The respondents Nos. 2 to 7 filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property of the diverted land Khasra No. 589/4 and 595/4 area 0.182 hectare, agricultural land of Khasra No. 585/2 and 595/1 area 0.1154 hectare situated at village Telibandha PH No. 64, Tahsil and District Raipur and also the diverted land of Khasra No. 579/4 and 595/4 area 0.182 hectare over which a house, servant quarters are constructed which are also situated at village Telibandha Tahsil and District Raipur. It is the pleading of the plaintiff in the civil suit that late Rajendra M. Patel and Smt. Daksha Patel have executed their separate will deeds on 06.03.2021 with respect to their properties, including the suit property, by which the plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 were given 20-20% share, and the plaintiffs No. 5 and 6 were given 10-10% share of their property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs came into possession of their respective shares of the properties as per the will dated 06.03.2021 after the death of Rajendra M. Patel on 22.03.2021 and Smt. Daksha Patel on 04.05.2021. When the plaintiffs moved their application for mutation before the Tahsildar, Raipur, the defendant No. 2/petitioner raised an objection that he had an agreement to purchase the suit land from Rajendra M. Patel and Smt. Daksha Patel, and he is in possession of the same. The plaintiffs have pleaded that Rajendra M. Patel and Smt. Daksha Patel has never executed any agreement in favour of the defendant no.1/petitioner or any other person and has not received any advance amount. Since the plaintiffs are residents of out of the State of Chhattisgarh, to take advantage, the defendant no.1 raised the objection in the mutation proceeding and tried to encroach on the suit properties, which were reported to the police, but no action has been taken by them. It is also the pleading that the mutation application of the plaintiffs has been rejected by the Tahsildar Raipur on the ground that the documents with respect to the ancestral property of the plaintiff have not been annexed with the application, and the appeal against the order dated 31.05.2022 is pending before the SDO (Revenue), Raipur. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the civil suit. In the said civil suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC for the grant of temporary injunction has also been filed.

3. After hearing the parties on the application of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, the learned trial Court passed the order on 01.01.2025, allowing the application and directed the parties to maintain the status quo with respect to the suit property till the final adjudication of the suit. The said order dated 01.01.2025 was challenged by the defendant No.1/petitioner in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14/2025 before the learned 4th District Judge, Raipur, which has been dismissed by order dated 18.03.2026. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court, as well as the appellate Court, has committed gross illegality in allowing the application for the grant of temporary injunction. They should have considered that the issue involves disputed question of fact, which is to be decided after recording evidence of the parties. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the s