Jharkhand High Court
Indradeo Narain Prasad vs Babulal Sao on 7 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:18251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 43 of 2024
[Against the Judgment dated 30.08.2024, passed by learned District
Judge-II, Chatra, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2023 affirming an order
dated 9th October, 2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-
II, Chatra in M.C. A. NO. 183 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No. 194
of 2021]
1. Indradeo Narain Prasad, aged about 81 years,
2. Randeo Narain Prasad, aged about 72 years.
3. Surajdeo Narain Prasad, aged about 67 years, all son of Late
Chandradeo Narain Prasad,
4. Harsh Raj, aged about 27 years, son of Late Pramod Kumar Sinha,
5. Satish Prasad, aged about 55 years,
6. Harish Kumar Sinha, aged about 52 years,
7. Manish Kumar Sinha, aged about 47 years,
8. Ashish Shekhar Prasad, aged about 43 years, No.5 to 8 are sons of
Late Ram Krishna Prasad,
9. Abhay Kumar Sinha, aged about 68 years,
10. Arun Kumar Sinha, aged about 67 years,
11.Ajay Kumar Sinha, aged about 66 years, No.9 to 12 are sons of
Late Tilakdhari Prasad,
All residents of village-Hauwag, PO: Peltaul, PS: Rajpur, District-
Chatra. .... Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Versus
1. Babulal Sao, son of Bechan Sao,
2. Gobind Sao, son of Umar Sao,
3.Shambhu Yadav, son of Murti Yadav,
4.Chetlal Sao, Son of Late Nunu Sao,
5. Ramdeo Sao, son of Jagdish Sao,
6. Pradeep Yadav, son of Pokhan Yadav,
7. Muneshwar Yadav, Son of Yugeshwar Yadav,
8. Ganesh Sao,
9. Upendra Sao, Both sons of Nunu Sao,
Civil Revision No. 43 of 2024
Page | 1
2025:JHHC:18251
10. Sanjay Sao, son of Kuldip Sao,
11. Kailash Yadav, Son of Asho Yadav,
12. Kailash Yadav, son of Bhuneshwar Yadav,
13. Ghanshyam Yadav, son of Late Sewa Yadav,
14. Santosh Kumar Thakur, son of Shyam Lal Thakur,
15. Nawal Pandey, son of Kailash Pandey,
16. Babloo Pandey, son of Chhotan Pandey,
17. Vikash Yadav, son of Sukar Yadav,
18. Sonu Yadav, son of Nago Yadav,
All residents of village-Hauwag, PO: Peltaul, PS: Rajpur, District-
Chatra.
.... Defendants/Respondents/Opposite Parties.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Adv.
---------
:Order:
Order No.10 dated:- 07.07.2025
Heard learned counsel for petitioners Mr. A.K. Sahani as well as
learned counsel for the opposite parties Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha.
2. Instant civil revision is directed against the order dated 30th August,
2024 passed by District Judge-II, Chatra in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 04 of
2023 affirming order dated 9th October, 2023 passed by learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division)-III, Chatra in M.C.A. No. 183 of 2022 (arising
out Original Suit No. 194 of 2021), whereby and whereunder, application
under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has
been rejected by the learned Appellate Court while the learned Trial
Page | 2
2025:JHHC:18251
Court has passed the order to maintain status quo by both the parties in
respect of the suit property.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the opposite parties.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Original Suit
No. 194 of 2021 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for declaration of
their right title and interest over the suit Schedule-I land and also for
grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/ opposite parties
from causing any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs
over the said land. The case of plaintiffs/petitioners is that they are
rightful owners and in possession of the suit property. In the year 2020,
The defendants started disturbing the possession of plaintiffs over an area
of 5.72 acres described in Schedule-II to the plaint without any legal
right on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and also created
disturbance in ploughing and cultivating over the suit land on
23.07.2020, hence this suit. It is further submitted that the suit was
admitted and summons were issued against the defendants/respondents
who appeared and filed their respective written statement on 11.08.2022.
It is further submitted that in the meantime, on 15.07.2022, an
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of
C.P.C. registered as M.C.A. No. 183 of 2022 in the Original Suit No. 194
of 2021 for grant of injunction by restraining the defendants to go over
Schedule-I and II land and change the nature of suit land till disposal of
the suit. An objection/rejoinder was filed by the defendants on
11.08.2022. Accordingly, after hearing the parties, the learned trial court
vide order dated 09.10.2023 passed an order maintaining "status quo" in
respect of suit property by both the parties.
Page | 3
2025:JHHC:18251
5. It is further submitted that the plaintiff/petitioners challenged the order
for maintaining status quo as their application was not granted by the
trial court as prayed for and filed a Misc. Appeal No. 4/23 before the
learned Principal District Judge, Chatra which was dismissed through
impugned order.
6. It is further submitted that learned appellate court has travelled beyond
the ambit and scope of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and finally decided
the rights of the parties in the name of "prima facie" case and it was
observed that there is prima facie case of respondents in respect of the
suit land and also observed their possession over the suit land without
any material on record. Although, it is clear cut case of the petitioners/
plaintiffs that their names have been mutated in respect of suit land and
they are paying revenue to the State Government which shows a prima
facie evidence of their possession at present over the suit land. On the
other hand, the defendants/respondents have only claimed their title on
the basis of settlement and no up to date rent receipt and opening
Jamabandi in their favour were adduced in evidence. The learned
Appellate Court accordingly decided the prima facie case in favour of the
respondents balance of convenience and irreparable loss also found
leaning in favour of respondents and ignored the basic principles of law
that the factors deciding the title of parties cannot be considered at this
very stage. Therefore, the learned trial court as well as the appellate court
misdirected himself in not taking into consideration the documentary
evidence submitted by the plaintiffs/petitioners in proper perspective and
has given undue weightage to the claim of the defendants. The learned
trial court has also failed to take into consideration that there are pending
several cases between the parties due to land dispute and there is
Page | 4
2025:JHHC:18251
apprehension of any untowards incidents, if interim injunction is not
passed. The disputed question of title of respective parties can only be
decided after conclusion of trial and cannot be countenanced at the
present stage of the proceedings. Therefore, impugned orders are liable
to be set aside and this revision may be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the
aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted
that the opposite parties have filed documentary evidence prima facie
showing their possession and title over the suit land and the plaintiffs
claim on the suit land are vague and based on ingenuine pleadings and
documents. It is further submitted that the learned trial court did not
consider the merits of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2
read with Section 151 of C.P.C. filed by the plaintiffs rather considering
the eminent apprehension of blood shed between the parties in respect of
land dispute, passed the order of maintaining "status quo" by both the
parties. Learned appellate court has very wisely and aptly considered all
the aspects of the case and on the basis of documentary evidence led by
the parties found that plaintiff has no prima facie case and balance of
convenience is also not in their favour as the defendants are in possession
of the suit property and there would be irreparable loss to the defendants,
therefore, dismissed the appeal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order passed by the learned appellate court. This revision has
no merits and fit to be dismissed.
9. I have gone through the record of the case considering the rival
contentions of the parties, it appears that there is contested dispute as
regard Schedule II land mentioned in the plaint. It is also apparent that at
present the names of the plaintiffs have been mutated with the Revenue
Page | 5
2025:JHHC:18251
records and they are paying rent to the State showing their prima facie
possession. The contested question of title may be decided after full
fledge trial. In the present scenario of the case where several criminal
litigations are pending as depicted in the order passed by learned trial
court in M.C.A. No. 183 of 2022 on application of the plaintiff under
Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. The
direction for marinating status quo in respect of suit property by both the
parties appears to be just and reasonable. The appellate court has delved
in question of deciding the title and possession of the defendants on the
basis of settlement in their favour prior to the plaintiffs, which cannot be
entertained at this stage of the proceeding.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the order passed by
learned appellate court dated 30.08.2024 is hereby set aside and
impugned order passed by the learned trial court dated 09.10.2023 is
restored. Accordingly, this civil revision is hereby disposed of.
11. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of.
12. Let the copy of this judgment be sent back to concerned trial court for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date:07 / 07 /2025
Amar/- N.A.F.R.
Page | 6
