Nandlal Patel Vs Umashankar Porte

¶1

1

CGHC010494262025

2026:CGHC:31367

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WP227 No. 1258 of 2025

¶7

1 - Nandlal Patel S/o Late Gangaram Patel Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Mahewa, Tahasil- Wadrafnagar, Dist- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G.

¶8

2 - Harikeshwar Patel S/o Late Gangaram Patel Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Mahewa, Tahasil- Wadrafnagar, Dist- BalrampurRamanujganj, C.G.

¶9

3 - Smt. Mridula Patel W/o Abhaya Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Mahewa, Tahasil- Wadrafnagar, Dist- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G.

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Umashankar Porte S/o Late Ransay Porte Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Mahewa, Tahasil- Wadrafnagar, Dist- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G.

¶13

2 - Gourishankar Porte S/o Late Ransay Porte Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Mahewa, Tahasil- Wadrafnagar, Dist- BalrampurRamanujganj, C.G.

¶14

Digitally signed by SUGUNA 3 - SUGUNADUBEY Birsay Porte S/o Late Shankar Porte Aged About 65 Years R/o DUBEYDate: 2026.07.23 15:00:18 +0530

¶15

2

¶16

Village- Mahewa, Tahasil- Wadrafnagar, Dist- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G.

¶17

4 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Balrampur, Dist- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G.

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 & 2	:	Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate
For Respondent No.4	:	Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy.GA

¶20

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

22/07/2026

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 11/2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ramanujganj, Wadrafnagar, District BalrampurRamanujganj in Civil Suit No. 17A/2022 has been affirmed.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed a civil suit seeking decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 8, admeasuring 0.817 hectare (subsequently renumbered as Khasra No. 257, admeasuring 0.817 hectare), situated at Village Maheva,

¶25

3

¶26

Tahsil Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. It is contended that the respondents are encroachers over the suit land and, therefore, possess no enforceable legal or equitable right. Despite the same, the learned trial Court has granted temporary injunction in their favour, which has been affirmed by the appellate Court. It is further submitted that, the suit being one simpliciter for permanent injunction, no interim protection could have been granted in favour of the plaintiffs, who are themselves alleged encroachers. On the aforesaid premises, it is prayed that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the writ petition be allowed.

¶27

Ont he other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and contended that the respondents have remained in peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for more than seven decades. It is submitted that the suit for permanent injunction came to be instituted only when the petitioners attempted to interfere with their settled possession. It is further argued that, having regard to the pleadings and the material available on record, the learned trial Court rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, which has subsequently been affirmed by the appellate Court. Consequently, it is submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

¶29

4

¶30

A perusal of the plaint (Annexure-P/3) reveals that the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they have been in possession of the suit land for more than seventy years and that, during the revenue settlement of the year 1974-75, the names of their ancestors were duly recorded in the revenue records as possession holders. It has further been pleaded that the defendants got their names mutated in the revenue records in the year 2020 and thereafter started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, compelling them to file the civil suit.

¶31

The petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, have also admitted the possession of the plaintiffs, though they have alleged that the plaintiffs are encroachers upon the suit property. The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and the material placed before it, granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, which order has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court.

¶32

Having regard to the nature of the controversy and considering that the civil suit has remained pending since the year 2022, coupled with the fact that the defendants have already preferred a counterclaim, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by directing the learned trial Court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial of the suit within a stipulated period.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly submit that they have no objection if the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the

¶34

5

¶35

proceedings within a time-bound schedule.

¶36

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims or the correctness of the findings recorded by the Courts below, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial in Civil Suit No. 17A/2022 expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶37

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

Nandlal Patel v. Umashankar Porte

Case brief

What is this about?

Nandlal Patel v. Umashankar Porte

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

Sushila Devi Vs Ram Bai

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Vinit Sharan

Jeevanlal Dhobi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pratima Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnaresh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajasthan Transport Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited