Advocates:
['Prasoon Agrawal', '', 'Aditi Singhvi', 'RAJ KUMAR RASTOGI', 'RAKESH KUMAR KASHYAP', 'PUSHPENDRA KUMAR PATEL', '', 'SMT N K KASHYAP', 'Dashrath Kushwaha', 'Pawan Kumar Kashyap', 'A G', 'Mrs SHITAL SONI', 'RAMAWATAR MISHRAVIJYITA SAHU']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MA No. 39 of 2021

• Jairaj Tamrakar, S/o Late Pitamber Lal Tamrakar, aged about 60 years,

R/o. Tamerpara Durg, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.).

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Bhuvan Lal, S/o Late Banwali, aged about 48 years,

2. Manharan Singh, S/o. Late Banwali, aged about 63 years,

3. Smt. Savitri Bai, D/o. Late Banwali, aged about 55 years,

4. Smt. Hira Bai, D/o Late Banwali, aged about 46 years,

5. Smt. Pritam Bai, D/o. Late Banwali, aged about 48 years,

All above respondents No. 1 to 5 are R/o. Village Baghera, Ward No.

56, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.).

6. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Durg, Tehsil and District Durg,

Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.).

7. Rajkumar Rawte, S/o. Late Gajadhar Rawte, aged about 34 years,

R/o. Jayanti Nagar, Durg, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.).

---- Respondents

For Appellant

: Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate

For Respondent Nos. 1 & 5

: Mr. Amattya Rajwade, Advocate

For State/Respondent No. 6

: Mr. Sanjeev K. Agrawal, P. L.

For Respondent No. 7

: M. Shital Soni, Advocate with

Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order on Board

13.04.2022

1. The appellant has filed the present miscellaneous appeal against the

order passed by 4^th Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 26-

A/2021, on 20.10.2021, whereby the application for grant of temporary

2

injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been rejected.

2. This Court while admitting the appeal on 01.11.2021 has passed the

following order :-

“ Accordingly, the I. A. No. 01/2021 dismissed, however, in

the interest of justice, till the next date of hearing, no

third party interest shall be created by the defendant in

the suit property”.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial

Court committed illegality in dismissing the application under order 39

Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and has not taken into consideration the legal

parameters for grant of injunction.

4. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondent No. 7 would

submit that the order passed by the trial Court is legal and justified and

does not warrant interfered by this Court as there is no illegality or

perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

6. Taking into consideration that the suit has been filed on 01.09.202,

before the trial Court one application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC

has been filed which was rejected by the Trial Court on 20.10.2021.

7. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the written

statement has not been filed by the defendant.

8. Let the written Statement be filed before the trial Court by the

defendant and thereafter the learned Trial Court may proceed in

accordance with law and should make an endavour to complete the

proceeding within an outer limit of one year & six months from the date

of receipt of copy of this order.

3

9. The defendants shall be at liberty to raise all the objections regarding

maintainability of the case in their written statement. It is also directed

that in the interest of justice, no third party interest shall be created by

the defendant in the suit property till the suit is finally decided by the

learned trial Court as earlier directed by the Court on 01.11.2021.

10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present Miscellaneous

appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge

amita