Chattisgarh High Court
Muleshwar vs Dhuran on 8 May, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by 2025:CGHC:21265
RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 493 of 2021
1. Muleshwar S/o Shri Hagra Aged About 60 Years Caste Nagesiya R/o
Village- Kantabel Tehsil- Manora District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh. ........Plaintiff
2. Budhnath S/o Hagra Aged About 55 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o
Village- Kantabel Tehsil- Manora District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh. .........Plaintiff
3. Vifna S/o Hagra Aged About 50 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village-
Kantabel Tehsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ........Plaintiff
... Petitioners
Versus
1. Dhuran S/o Choyo Aged About 60 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village-
Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
2. Dherku S/o Choyo Aged About 55 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village-
Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3. Dhanmani S/o Aitwa Aged About 55 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o
Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
4. Budhan S/o Letangu Aged About 35 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o
Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
5. Chhulu S/o Letangu Aged About 30 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o
Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
6. Feku S/o Meghu Aged About 32 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village-
Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
7. Sukhram S/o Meghu Aged About 30 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o
Village- Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
8. Balram S/o Jeetu Aged About 55 Years Caste- Nagesiya, R/o Village-
Kantabel Tahsil- Manora District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
9. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Jashpur, District- Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioners/Plaintiffs/ : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate
Appellants
For Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
For Other Respondents : None, though served
2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
08/05/2025
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners
had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession with regard to
land bearing Survey No. 21 admeasuring 14.555 acres situated at
Village Kantabel, P.H. No. 10, Revenue Circle Manora, Tahsil Manora,
District Jashpur (C.G.) and it was dismissed vide judgment and decree
dated 31.10.2017. He would contend that the petitioners preferred a
regular appeal before the learned Court below. He would contend that
an application under Section 151 of CPC was moved by defendants
No. 2 and 8 before the learned Appellate Court seeking relief of stay of
the revenue proceedings pending before the Tahsildar, Manora and to
grant relief of temporary injunction and the said application was
allowed vide order dated 19.7.2021. He would also contend that the
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings of the Revenue
Courts and further, the appeal was filed by plaintiffs/petitioners
therefore the application moved by the defendants for temporary
injunction was not maintainable.
2. On the other hand, Mr. Prateek Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing
for the State/respondent No.9 would oppose. He would submit that the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
4. Indisputably, the petitioners preferred a civil suit for declaration of title
and possession and it was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
31.10.2017. They preferred a regular appeal before the learned Court
3
below. Defendant No. 2 and others moved an application seeking stay
of the further proceedings of the revenue court and for the grant of
temporary injunction. The learned Appellate Court allowed the
application moved under Section 151 of CPC and restrained the
petitioners from interfering with the possession.
5. Admittedly, the civil suit filed by petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed by
trial court. They preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree.
Defendant No. 2 and others moved an application under Section 151 of
CPC and sought relief of temporary injunction and the same was
allowed by the learned Appellate Court. The application moved by the
defendants for the grant of temporary injunction was not maintainable
for the reasons – (i) the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed on
merits and there was no executable decree against the defendants,
and (ii) the application for temporary injunction cannot be moved by the
defendants.
6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of
this Court, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of the law
and accordingly the same is set aside. The learned Appellate Court is
directed to expedite the proceedings of the pending appeal, if already
not concluded.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti