Disposed¶33

Juthan Ram Rajwade v. Jamuna Prasad Rajwade

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jan 2025WP227/12/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP227 No. 12 of 2025; High Court of Chhattisgarh; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; interim restraint pending civil suit; Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC; Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC; stay of mutation/revenue proceedings before Tehsildar; registered sale-deed dated 15.09.2021; Schedule-D(1); third-party interest; multiplicity of cases; Civil Suit No. 86-A/2023; Misc Civil Appeal No. 19-A/2024; Ambikapur/Surguja; defendant stated to be mentally unfit; bona-fide purchasers; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondents No. 3 and 4 directed not to create third-party interest pertaining to the suit property described in Schedule-D(1) till final disposal of the civil suit; trial court directed to conclude the pending civil suit expeditiously. ¶33

Juthan Ram Rajwade Vs Jamuna Prasad Rajwade — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the appellate rejection of the plaintiffs' application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC (seeking stay of mutation/revenue proceedings), as affirmed by the III rd District Judge, Ambikapur, deserves to be allowed. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The Court proceeded on the footing that civil courts have no jurisdiction over revenue courts, which was stated as the basis on which the trial court had rejected the plaintiffs' application; the jurisdiction question itself was not adjudicated afresh in this writ petition.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Considering that if the suit property mentioned in Schedule-D(1) is further alienated by defendants No. 3 and 4 it would cause a multiplicity of cases, this Court was of the opinion that defendants No. 3 and 4 should be restrained from creating a third party interest.

¶32

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands disposed of directing respondents No. 3 and 4 not to create a third-party interest pertaining to the suit property described in Schedule-D(1) till the final disposal of the civil suit, and the trial court is directed to conclude the proceedings of the pending civil suit expeditiously.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey), by judgment dated 16/01/2025 in WP227 No. 12 of 2025, disposed of a writ petition by four plaintiff-family members (plaintiff No. 1 being father, plaintiff No. 2 mother, and plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 sisters of defendant No. 1) challenging the order of the learned III rd District Judge, Ambikapur dated 07.11.2024 in Misc Civil Appeal No. 19-A/2024, whereby their appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against rejection of their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC had been rejected and the trial court's order dated 13.08.2024 in Civil Suit No. 86-A/2023 affirmed. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No. 1, stated to be mentally unfit, had executed a registered sale-deed dated 15.09.2021 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 over Khasra Nos. in Schedule-D(1), and mutation proceedings were pending before the Tehsildar, Ambikapur. Holding that further alienation of the Schedule-D(1) property would cause a multiplicity of cases, the Court directed respondents No. 3 and 4 not to create a third-party interest in the suit property described in Schedule-D(1) till the final disposal of the civil suit, and directed the trial court to conclude the pending civil suit expeditiously.

2025:CGHC:2670

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 12 of 2025

¶6

1. Juthan Ram Rajwade S/o Jaypaal Rajwade Aged About 65 Years Caste Rajwar Occupation Agriculture R/o Village - Jogibandh Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶7

2. Rambai W/o Juthan Ram Rajwade Aged About 60 Years Caste Rajwar Occupation Agriculture R/o Village - Jogibandh Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶8

3. Anil Bai D/o Juthan Ram Rajwade Aged About 26 Years Caste Rajwar Occupation Agriculture R/o Village - Jogibandh Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶9

4. Anju Bai D/o Juthan Ram Rajwade Aged About 23 Years Caste Rajwar Occupation Agriculture R/o Village - Jogibandh Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1. Jamuna Prasad Rajwade S/o Juthan Ram Rajwade Aged About 33 Years Usnound Mind Through Amicus Curiae (Separate Application Has Been Filed For Appointment R/o Jogibandh Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶13

2. Lalan Rajwade S/o Dharmpal Rajwade Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Labji (Jamtipara) P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶14

3. Ghansyam Das Agrawal S/o Tekchand Agrawal Aged About 59 Years R/o Brahm Road P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶15

4. Devendra Kumar Rajwade S/o Shivpal Rajwade Aged About 31 Years Caste Rajwar R/o Village Majhapara Tahsil Darima District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶16

5. Abhishek Agariya S/o Ramu Agariya Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Poksari Tahsil Btauli District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶17

6. Jitan Ram S/o Ramphal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bhitthikala Tahsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶18

¶19

7. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District - Collector District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶20

... Respondent(s)

¶21

For Petitioners :	Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents No. 3 & 4 :	Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate
For State/Respondent No. 7 :	Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L.

¶22

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

¶23

16/01/2025

¶24

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this petition challenging the order passed by the learned III rd District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) passed in Misc Civil Appeal No. 19-A/2024 dated 07.11.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected and the order passed by the learned II nd Civil Judge, Junior Grade, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 86-A/2023 dated 13.08.2024 has been affirmed.

¶25

2. Plaintiff No. 1 is the father of defendant No. 1; plaintiff No. 2 is the mother of defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 are sisters of defendant No. 1.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit property mentioned in Schedule-D(1) has been alienated by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants No. 3 and 4 through a registered sale-deed dated 15.09.2021. He further submits that defendant No. 1 is mentally unfit and taking benefit of his mental status, defendants No. 3 and 4 got executed a sale-deed pertaining to Khasra Nos. mentioned in Schedule-D(1) in their favor on 15.09.2021. He contends that defendants No. 3 and 4 moved an application before the Tehsildar, Ambikapur for mutation and that proceeding is going on, therefore, an

¶27

¶28

application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was moved making a prayer for stay on the revenue proceedings. He further contends that the application moved by the plaintiffs was rejected by the learned trial Court and the appeal preferred against that order has also been dismissed. He argues that it is a well-settled principle of law that civil Courts have no jurisdiction over the revenue Courts. He prays that respondents No. 3 and 4 may be restrained from creating third party interest till the final disposal of the civil suit.

¶29

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4 opposes. She submits that respondents No. 3 and 4 are bona-fide purchasers and they have the right over the suit property described in Schedule-D(1). She contends that the application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 has rightly been rejected by the Courts below.

¶30

5. Learned State counsel submits that there is a dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants.

¶31

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶32

7. Taking into consideration the fact that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction over revenue Courts, therefore, the application moved by the plaintiffs was rejected by the trial Court. Further considering the fact that if the suit property mentioned in Schedule-D(1) is further alienated by defendants No. 3 and 4, it would cause a multiplicity of cases, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, defendants No. 3 and 4 should be restrained from creating a third party interest.

¶33

8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of directing respondents No. 3 and 4 to not create a third party interest pertaining

¶34

¶35

to the suit property described in Schedule-D(1) till the final disposal of the civil suit. The trial Court is also directed to conclude the proceedings of the pending civil suit expeditiously.

¶36

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶37

Ajinkya

Juthan Ram Rajwade v. Jamuna Prasad Rajwade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juthan Ram Rajwade v. Jamuna Prasad Rajwade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Jain Vs Indusind Bank Limited

Anita Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.

Kamlesh Kumar Sahu Vs South Eastern Coalfield Limited

Grihum Housing Finance Limited Vs G. Krishna Muti

Sanjay Kumar Das Vs Meena Das

M/s Subham Build Con And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.