Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Kumari Bai vs Ramshila Bai on 12 December, 2023
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 898 of 2023
1. Smt. Kumari Bai W/o. Late Bisram Das Sahu, Aged About 55 Years
R/o. Village Sheetalmata Mandir Road, Ward No.5 Chikhali, Tahsil And District
- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff)
2. Uttara Bai, D/o. Late Bisram Das Sahu, Aged About 35 Years
W/o. Hukum Sahu, R/o. Laxminagar, Near Kalmana, Nagpur (Maharasthra)
3. Savita Bai, D/o. Late Bisram Das Sahu, Aged About 32 Years
W/o. Girdhar Sahu, R/o. Village Kotra (Near Surgi) Tahsil And District -
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgrh.
4. Durpat Bai D/o. Late Bisram Das Sahu, Aged About 28 Years
W/o. Vasudev Sahu, R/o. Village - Kuhikhurd, Tahsil And District -
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgrh. ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Ramshila Bai W/o. Kanshi Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village Hathkhoj,
Near Shitla Mandir, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defendants)
2. Devdas, S/o. Late Pachkoud Sahu, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village -
Sheetalmata Mandir Road, Ward. 5 Chikhali, Tahsil And District Rajnandgoan,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Shyamsundar, S/o. Late Tulsiram Sahu, Aged About 60 Years
R/o. Village - Sheetalmata Mandir Road, Ward. 5 Chikhali, Tahsil And District
Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Dashodiya Bai, W/o. Late Shyamdas Sahu, R/o. Village - Sheetalmata
Mandir Road, Ward. 5 Chikhali, Tahsil And District Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh.
5. Kripal Sahu, S/o. Late Shyamdas Sahu, R/o. Village - Sheetalmata Mandir
Road, Ward. 5 Chikhali, Tahsil And District Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh.
6. Santu Sahu, S/o. Late Shyamdas Sahu,
R/o. Village - Sheetalmata Mandir Road, Ward. 5 Chikhali, Tahsil And District
Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh.
7. Chinta Sahu, S/o. Late Shyamdas Sahu,
R/o. Village - Sheetalmata Mandir Road, Ward. 5 Chikhali, Tahsil And District
Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh.
8. Omprakash Sahu, S/o. Late Shyamdas Sahu,
R/o. Village - Sheetalmata Mandir Road, Ward. 5 Chikhali, Tahsil And District
Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh.
9. Sushila Bai, W/o. Ghanajeet Sahu, Aged About 50 Years
R/o. Village - Surgi, P.S. - Surgi, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
10. State Of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Rajnandgaon, CG---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Chitendra Singh, PL.
2Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.
Order on Board (12-12-2023)
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 4-1-2022 (Annexure P/4) passed in Civil Suit No 58-A of 2019 by which application filed by the plaintiff for grant of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been rejected as well as against the order dated 23-1-2023 by which the Additional District Judge, FTC Rajnandgaon has rejected the Miscellaneous Appeal No 01 of 2022 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs affirming the order of the trial court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial court has not taken into consideration that if injunction is not granted, then the respondents may alienate the suit property which may cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff, balance of convenience lies in their favour. He would further submit that prima facie case is also in their favour, as such the ingredients for grant of injunction is available on record.
3. The record of the case would show that the learned trial Court after going through the record has recorded a finding that the sale deed has already been executed in favour of the defendant and mutation has already been done in favour of the respondents and their names have also been recorded in revenue records. It is also undisputed fact that the property belongs to joint family, therefore, the petitioners and respondents are co-sharers of the property which part of the property falls within the share of petitioners or respondents can adjudicate after recording of the evidence only which cannot be considered at this juncture while considering the application for grant of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has already moved an application in which it has been 3 stated that the property has been subsequently purchased by the petitioners. This is also not sufficient ground to grant injunction in favour of the petitioner as this fact is required to be adjudicated after recording of evidence of the parties before the court below.
5. Considering these aspects of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. However, since the suit has been filed in the year 2019 and more than four years have lapsed, it is directed that as the matter is pending for than more four years, the trial court shall make endeavour to conclude the trial within an outer limit of 1 year and six months from next scheduled dated fixed by the learned trial court.
6. Accordingly with the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju