Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Krishna Gupta vs Indra Prasad Gupta on 17 September, 2021
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(227) No. 150 of 2021
Smt. Krishna Gupta, W/o. Ashok Prasad Gupta, aged about 50 years, R/o.
Bhathi Road Kedarpur, Ambikapur Nagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Indra Prasad Gupta, S/o. Late Devnarayan Ram Gupta, aged about 75
years, Through : Santosh Kumar Gupta (Advocate) C.G. High Court, R/
o. Mahima Tower Rajiv Gandhi Chowk Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector Surguja Ambikapur
(Chhattisgarh).
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with
Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate
For State-Respondent : Ms. Shivali Dubey, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order On Board
17/09/2021
1. This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated
18.02.2021, passed by the Fifth Civil Judge Class-2, Ambikapur, District
- Sarguja, in Civil Suit No.173-A/2017, by which the learned trial Court
has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of
C.P.C. praying for interim relief to restrain the alienation of the suit
property.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the civil suit
has been brought praying for relief of declaration of title and permanent
injunction with respect to the suit property Kh. No. 1465/3, measuring
area 0.032 hectares, situated at Thanganpara, Ambikapur. It is
submitted that the respondent No.1 has entered into an agreement for
sale of the suit property and on the basis of that agreement, has filed an
application before the Collector, Sarguja praying for permission for sale
of the land. Therefore, the application was filed under Section 151 of
C.P.C. praying for grant of order of status-quo, which has been rejected
by the impugned order. The impugned order is illegal and unsustainable
and therefore, it is prayed that this Court may interfere and pass
appropriate order under the supervisory jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the petition and the
submission made in this respect. It is submitted that the prayer that was
made by the petitioner under Section 151 of C.P.C. was the same that
was earlier made by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of
C.P.C., before the learned trial Court. The application under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. was dismissed by order dated 11.12.2018 by the
trial Court that order was not challenged by the petitioner in appeal,
therefore, in presence of finding that the petitioner has no prima-facie
case in his favaour, the prayer under Section 151 of C.P.C. was not fit to
be considered. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme
Court in case of Amar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in
(2011) 7 SCC 69, in which it has been held that the litigants must come
to the Court with clean hands and they must observe total clarity and
candour in their pleadings and especially when it contains a prayer for
injunction. It is submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of
rejection of her earlier application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.PC.
in which similar prayer was made. Therefore, the application under
Section 151 of C.P.C. was not filed with clear intention of the petitioner.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of
National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. C.
Parameshwara, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 256, in which it was held that
inherent power under Section 151 of C.P.C. can not be exercised so as
to nullify the provisions of the Code, where the Code deals expressly
with a particular matter, provision should normally be regarded as
exhaustive. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment of
Supreme Court in case of Surjit Singh & Ors. Vs. Gurwant Kaur &
Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 665, in which it was held that successive
application based on the same set of facts can be rejected on the
ground of abuse of process of the Court.
4. It is further submitted, that the respondent No.1 is an old aged person of
age about 80 years, and it is very unfortunate that the petitioner/plaintiff
is the daughter of the respondent No.1, who is prosecuting the case
against the respondent No.1 stating that the suit property was benami
purchased by the petitioner in the name of the respondent No.1, which
is being contested by the respondent No.1. The impugned order does
not suffer from any infirmity, therefore, it is sustainable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
6. Civil suit was filed in the year 2017 and the application for grant of
temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. appears to
have been filed along with. In that application, the petitioner had raised
her apprehension that the suit property may be alienated by the
respondent No.1 and prayed for grant of temporary injunction. The
learned trial Court had by order dated 11.12.2018 copy of which has
been filed as (Annexure R-1/1) held that the petitioner has no prima-
facie case in her favour, therefore, she will not suffer any irreparable
injury, neither balance of convenience is in her favour. The petitioner
has produced the copy of the application (Annexure P-4), which is filed
by the respondent No.1, before the Collector, Sarguja praying for
permission for sale of the suit property on the basis of the agreement to
sale with one Smt. Shashikala Singh this application is dated
19.11.2019, therefore, it can be regarded as a subsequent event.
7. The petitioner had option to file a fresh application under Order 39 Rule
1 and 2 of C.P.C. praying for temporary injunction. In view of the finding
that are already present in the order dated 11.12.2018, that the
petitioner/plaintiff has no prima-facie case in her favour, which has not
been challenged before any Court although the petitioner had remedy
available to file appeal against that order, therefore, an application on
the same set of facts was not fit to be agitated under Section 151 of
C.P.C., regarding which there is clear view of the Supreme Court in the
case of Surjeet Singh (Supra) that such application should be
regarded as abuse of process of law.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion made, I do not find any reason to
interfere in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any
merit, which is dismissed and disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Balram
