Dismissed¶47

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar v. Nikhilesh Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC15 Apr 2026MA/157/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction; Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC; Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC appeal; prima facie case; balance of convenience; irreparable loss; settled possession; rival sale deeds; Khasra No. 401/16 and 401/13; demarcation proceedings; Revenue Inspector; Tahsildar order 03.05.2022; Collector revision; Section 250 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code; Dhamtari; appellate non-interference; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The dispute between the parties essentially relates to identification of the same parcel of land on the basis of rival sale deeds, and the Trial Court correctly held that the plaintiffs, being prior purchasers under the registered sale deed dated 13.07.2007, established a prima facie case in their favour at this stage. ¶41

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar Vs Nikhilesh Kumar — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order granting temporary injunction rested on a valid prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, such that it warrants no interference in appeal. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court's finding that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs, who are in settled possession, cannot be said to be erroneous; the defendants' plea of separate identity of the land does not appear reliable at this stage in view of inconsistencies in the demarcation proceedings.

¶42

Key takeaways

Any interference with the plaintiffs' settled possession during pendency of the suit would result in irreparable injury which cannot be adequately compensated.ratio¶44
The Trial Court dealt with the defendants' contentions, including the proceedings before the revenue authorities, and assigned cogent and convincing reasons for not placing reliance on them at this stage; no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is demonstrated warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the District Judge, Dhamtari's order dated 29.07.2025 in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2023 granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC. The dispute concerned identification of the same parcel of land claimed under rival sale deeds (plaintiffs' Khasra No. 401/16, sale deed dated 13.07.2007, versus defendants' Khasra No. 401/13, sale deed dated 24.07.2018). Upholding the Trial Court's findings that the plaintiffs, as prior purchasers in settled possession, had a prima facie case, that balance of convenience lay in their favour, and that interference would cause irreparable, uncompensable injury, and holding that the defendants' reliance on demarcation proceedings and revenue orders (Tahsildar's order dated 03.05.2022 affirmed by the Collector; Section 250, Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code) was properly not relied upon at the interlocutory stage, the High Court found no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error and dismissed the appeal.

2026:CGHC:17476

SOURABH BHILWAR

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.04.17 17:07:20 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MA No. 157 of 2025

¶8

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.

¶9

2 - Paras Chandrakar S/o Ghasuram Chandrakar Aged About 58 Years R/o Shradha Nagar Aama Talab Road Dhamtari, Tehsil And DistrictDhamtari C.G.

¶10

3 - Nikunj Shinde S/o Late Chandrashekhar Raom Aged About 30 Years R/o Bans Para Ward Dhamtari, Tehsil And District- Dhamtari CG.

¶11

4 - Ambika Shinde D/o Late Chandrashekhar Raom Aged About 25 Years R/o Bans Para Ward Dhamtari, Tehsil And District- Dhamtari CG.

¶12

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

1 - Nikhilesh Kumar S/o Late Maheshwarsingh Gautam Aged About 35 Years R/o Junior MIG -1, Hatkesar Colony, Dhamtari Tehsil And DistrictDhamtari CG.

¶17

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.

¶18

3 - Madhuri D/o Late Maheshwar Singh Gautam Aged About 37 Years R/o Junior MIG -1, Hatkesar Colony, Dhamtari Tehsil And DistrictDhamtari CG.

¶19

4 - Laxmi Wd/o Late Maheshwar Singh Gautam Aged About 61 Years R/o Junior MIG -1, Hatkesar Colony, Dhamtari Tehsil And DistrictDhamtari CG.

¶20

5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Dhamtari DistrictDhamtari, C.G.

¶21

…. Respondent(s)

¶22

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

¶23

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Lekhram Dhruw, Panel Lawyer

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶25

Judgment on Board

¶26

16/04/2026

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

(a) The plaintiffsp/ respondents No.1 to 4 herein have instituted a suit against the defendants seeking declaration, permanent injunction and damages.

¶31

(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

¶32

¶33

of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property during pendency of the suit.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the record and the impugned order with utmost circumspection.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

Accordingly, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶48

$. Bhilwar

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar v. Nikhilesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Chandrakar v. Nikhilesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deleted (Gautam Bai) (Died) Vs Melanram (Died and Deleted) Through legal heirs

Sunil Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Kumar Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nidhi Sao Vs Greenearth Infraventures Private Limited

Arun Kumar Randhive Vs Shyam Sunder Khandelwal

Ramdas (Died) Vs Firantin Bai