[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Chandrashekhar Chandrakar vs Nikhilesh Kumar on 16 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:17476
SOURABH
BHILWAR
NAFR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
BHILWAR
Date: 2026.04.17
17:07:20 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MA No. 157 of 2025
1 - Chandrashekhar Chandrakar S/o Paras Chandrakar Aged About 25
Years R/o Shradha Nagar Aama Talab Road Dhamtari, Tehsil And
District- Dhamtari C.G.
2 - Paras Chandrakar S/o Ghasuram Chandrakar Aged About 58 Years
R/o Shradha Nagar Aama Talab Road Dhamtari, Tehsil And District-
Dhamtari C.G.
3 - Nikunj Shinde S/o Late Chandrashekhar Raom Aged About 30 Years
R/o Bans Para Ward Dhamtari, Tehsil And District- Dhamtari CG.
4 - Ambika Shinde D/o Late Chandrashekhar Raom Aged About 25
Years R/o Bans Para Ward Dhamtari, Tehsil And District- Dhamtari CG.
5 - Sita Shinde Wd/o Late Chandrashekhar Raom Aged About 30 Years
R/o Bans Para Ward Dhamtari, Tehsil And District- Dhamtari CG.
... Appellant(s)
versus
2
1 - Nikhilesh Kumar S/o Late Maheshwarsingh Gautam Aged About 35
Years R/o Junior MIG -1, Hatkesar Colony, Dhamtari Tehsil And District-
Dhamtari CG.
2 - Kamalkant Kumar S/o Late Maheshwar Singh Gautam Aged About
33 Years R/o Junior MIG -1, Hatkesar Colony, Dhamtari Tehsil And
District- Dhamtari CG.
3 - Madhuri D/o Late Maheshwar Singh Gautam Aged About 37 Years
R/o Junior MIG -1, Hatkesar Colony, Dhamtari Tehsil And District-
Dhamtari CG.
4 - Laxmi Wd/o Late Maheshwar Singh Gautam Aged About 61 Years
R/o Junior MIG -1, Hatkesar Colony, Dhamtari Tehsil And District-
Dhamtari CG.
5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Dhamtari District-
Dhamtari, C.G.
.... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate
For Respondent/ State : Mr. Lekhram Dhruw, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Judgment on Board
16/04/2026
1. The appellants/ defendants have preferred the present appeal
under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
being aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the
learned District Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil
Suit No. 5-A/2023 (Nikhilesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Chnadrashekhar
Chandrakar & Ors.), whereby the learned trial Court allowed the
application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w
Section 151 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction in respect of
the suit property.
2. (a) The plaintiffsp/ respondents No.1 to 4 herein have instituted
a suit against the defendants seeking declaration, permanent
injunction and damages.
(b) In the said suit, the plaintiffs have also filed an application
under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the CPC, stating
therein that the father of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and husband of
plaintiff No. 4, late Maheshwar Singh Gautam, had purchased the
suit property bearing Khasra No. 401/16 admeasuring 2420 sq. ft.,
situated at village Rudri Khar, Dhamtari, by a registered sale deed
dated 13.07.2007 and had obtained possession thereof. After his
demise, the plaintiffs continued to remain in peaceful possession
of the said property. It is alleged that the defendants, on the basis
of a disputed demarcation conducted without proper notice to the
plaintiffs, attempted to interfere with their possession by damaging
the boundary wall and gate and making efforts to encroach upon
the suit property. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that the
demarcation proceedings were conducted arbitrarily, without
proper measurement and without affording them an opportunity of
hearing, resulting in an erroneous report treating them as
encroachers. Hence, asserting prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable loss, the plaintiffs have sought grant
of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with the suit property during pendency of the suit.
3. Per contra, the defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 have filed their reply to
the said application, denying the averments made by the plaintiffs
and contending that the plaintiffs' land bearing Khasra No. 401/16
admeasuring 2420 sq. ft. is situated at Siddhivinayak Colony,
whereas the land owned by the defendants bearing Khasra No.
401/13 admeasuring 2100 sq. ft. is situated at Kailashpati Nagar.
It is further contended that no encroachment or damage has been
caused by the defendants to the plaintiffs' property and the
defendants are in lawful possession of their own land, which was
purchased through a registered sale deed dated 24.07.2018. The
defendants have also relied upon the demarcation proceedings
conducted by the Revenue Inspector and the order dated
03.05.2022 passed by the Tahsildar, which has been affirmed in
revision by the Collector, Dhamtari. Hence, the defendants have
prayed for rejection of the application filed by the plaintiffs for
temporary injunction.
4. After hearing the parties and upon consideration of the facts and
material available on record, the learned Trial Court allowed the
application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w
Section 151 of the CPC, holding that the dispute pertains to
identification of the suit property and the plaintiffs, being prior
purchasers under a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2007, have
been able to establish a prima facie case in their favour. The Trial
Court further observed that the demarcation report also indicates
the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and the claim
of the defendants regarding the land being situated at a different
location is not reliable at this stage. It was also held that the
balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs and any
interference by the defendants would cause irreparable loss to
them. Accordingly, the application for temporary injunction was
allowed, restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit
property till final disposal of the suit or until further orders.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the
learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in passing the
impugned order without properly appreciating the pleadings and
the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. He
submits that no prima facie case, balance of convenience or
irreparable loss is made out in favour of the plaintiffs for grant of
temporary injunction. He further submits that the appellants are in
possession of the suit property pursuant to demarcation
proceedings and orders passed by the competent revenue
authority under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue
Code, and such possession has not been challenged before any
competent forum. He contends that the plaintiffs have suppressed
material facts regarding the revenue proceedings and have not
approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, the impugned
order granting injunction is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the
record and the impugned order with utmost circumspection.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the defendants at length and
upon careful consideration of the entire material available on
record, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has
meticulously examined the pleadings and the oral as well as
documentary evidence in their proper perspective. The Trial Court
has rightly appreciated that the dispute between the parties
essentially relates to identification of the same parcel of land, in
respect of which rival claims have been set up on the basis of
separate sale deeds. On evaluation of the documents, particularly
the registered sale deed dated 13.07.2007 in favour of the
plaintiffs, the Trial Court has correctly held that the plaintiffs are
prior purchasers and, at this stage, have been able to establish a
prima facie case in their favour.
8. The Trial Court has further taken into account the demarcation
report and other material on record, and has recorded a
categorical finding that the possession of the suit property was
with the plaintiffs. It has also been observed that the plea of the
defendants regarding separate identity of the land does not
appear to be reliable at this stage, especially in view of the
inconsistencies reflected in the demarcation proceedings. In such
circumstances, the finding of the Trial Court that the balance of
convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs, who are in settled
possession, cannot be said to be erroneous. The Trial Court has
also rightly concluded that any interference with such possession
during pendency of the suit would result in irreparable injury to the
plaintiffs, which cannot be adequately compensated.
9. This Court further finds that the learned Trial Court has dealt with
the contentions raised by the defendants, including the
proceedings before the revenue authorities, and has assigned
cogent and convincing reasons for not placing reliance on the
same at this stage. The order impugned reflects due application of
mind and is based on settled principles governing grant of
temporary injunction. No perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error
is demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court
has rightly allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w
Section 151 of the CPC. The impugned order being well reasoned
and legally sustainable calls for no interference.
11. Accordingly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, liable to be
and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
$. Bhilwar
