Dismissed¶25

Mohammad Mumtajuddin v. Smt. Savitri Masih

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2026MA/91/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction; Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC; Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC; balance of convenience; sale agreement dated 31/10/2023; consideration Rs. 52,32,000/-; advances Rs. 6,40,000/- and Rs. 8,60,000/-; imminent sale to third person; documentary proof/affidavit; declaration and permanent injunction; Civil Suit No.68A/2024; 9th District Judge Raipur; dismissal at motion stage; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; MA No. 91 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

The plaintiff produced no documents or affidavit showing that the defendant was in process of selling the suit land to any other person; the injunction application rested on mere presumption, so it cannot be said the defendant No.1 was going to sell the suit land to a third person. ¶24

Mohammad Mumtajuddin Vs Smt. Savitri Masih — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:594

NAFR

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP AMARDEEP CHOUBEY CHOUBEY Date: 2026.01.07 16:00:59 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MA No. 91 of 2025

¶7

Mohammad Mumtajuddin S/o Mohammad Jahiruddin Aged About 47 Years R/o Budhapara, In Front Of Fatema Building, United Bank Of India, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Savitri Masih W/o Yohan Masih Aged About 67 Years R/o Raipur Naka, F.C.I. Godown Road, Ward No. 12, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgoan, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Collectorate Campus, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board

¶15

06.01.2026

¶16

By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC, the plaintiff/appellant is challenging the order dated 27/03/2025 passed by the 9^th District Judge, Raipur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.68A/2024, by which, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC has been rejected.

¶17

¶18

(a) The plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to land situated in village-Jora, Patwari Halka No.66, R.N.M. Raipur 09, Tehsil and District-Raipur, C.G., pleadings inter alia that the suit land is in the name of defendant, who vide agreement dated 31/10/2023 agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 52,32,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid advance of Rs. 6,40,000/- and Rs.8,60,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the sale deed was to be executed within a period of three months, however, by one or other reason, the defendant is trying to avoid execution of sale deed. The plaintiff contended that the defendant No.1 with malicious intent and in violation of the terms and conditions of the sale agreement, is in search of another buyer to sale the disputed land. Along with suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and sought temporary injunction.

¶19

After considering the relevant facts and material, the learned trial Court by the order impugned, dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. Hence, this appeal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the defendant No.1 has never shown his readiness and willingness for execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. He would submit that the defendant No.1 is in search of buyer for land in dispute at a higher price. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, however,

¶21

¶22

the learned trial Court without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in its true perspective, has dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶24

Bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the plaintiff has not produced any documents or affidavit with regard to the fact that the defendant is in process of sale of the suit land in favour of any other person. No documentary proof placed on record along with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The application has been filed only on the presumption. Hence, it cannot be said that the defendant No.1 is going to sale the suit in favour of any third person. The plaintiff has also failed to establish his case by placing cogent and sufficient material. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that no balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff. The order impugned passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all.

¶25

Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶26

SD/-

¶27

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶28

Gowri/ Amardeep

Mohammad Mumtajuddin v. Smt. Savitri Masih

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Mumtajuddin v. Smt. Savitri Masih

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

Sohan Singh Vs Rajesh Singh

Raj Bijju Tyagrajan Vs Kailash Sonwani

Rakesh Kumar Soni Vs Smt. Pushpa Verma

Mohar Sai Vs Smt. Sundari Bai

Shriram Yadav Vs Jairam Yadav

Smt. Bindiya Bai Vs Satyanarayan