Ajay Sidara v. Renu Jogi

Chhattisgarh HC19 Apr 2026WP227/457/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WP227 No. 457 of 2026; Ajay Sidara v. Renu Jogi and others; Article 227 Constitution of India; Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 3 read with Section 151 CPC; rejection of application for urgent hearing of suit for specific performance; suit property already alienated; mutation of purchaser under process; interim order in WP(227) No. 279/2026 stayed only third-party interest creation, not suit proceedings; suit fixed for 24.04.2026; no interference; petition disposed of with liberty; Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal; 20/04/2026; 2026:CGHC:17858; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the trial Court's order; writ petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy before the learned trial Court by filing appropriate applications. ¶¶27

Ajay Sidara Vs Renu Jogi — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the trial Court's rejection of the plaintiff-petitioner's application for urgent hearing of the suit for specific performance, or direct early hearing of the suit.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the suit was already fixed before the learned trial Court on 24.04.2026, the High Court was not inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the learned trial Court at that stage.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

The interim order in the connected WP(227) No. 279/2026 stayed only creation of third-party interest over the suit property till the next date of hearing; the further proceedings of the suit were not stayed, so the trial Court was not barred from proceeding.ratio¶¶26
The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue his remedy before the learned trial Court by filing appropriate applications.ratio¶¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.04.2026 of the Third District Judge, Bilaspur (Civil Suit No. A/16/2026) rejecting the plaintiff's application for urgent hearing of a suit for specific performance of contract. Held: the suit was already fixed before the learned trial Court for 24.04.2026; the interim order in the pending connected writ petition WP(227) No. 279/2026 stayed only creation of third-party interest over the suit property and not the further proceedings of the suit; accordingly, the Court was not inclined to interfere at that stage. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue his remedy before the learned trial Court by filing appropriate applications. (Single judge: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal; decision dated 20/04/2026; neutral citation 2026:CGHC:17858.)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed bySUMIT SUMIT KUMAR KUMAR Date:2026.04.22 11:01:49 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:17858

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WP227 No. 457 of 2026

¶7

Ajay Sidara S/o Late Hariram Sidara, Aged About 38 Years R/o Nariyal Kothi Dayalband, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Renu Jogi W/o Late Ajeet Pramod Jogi, Aged About 72 Years R/o Jogi Niwas Block No. 14, House No. 9/39, In Front Of Chief Minister Residence, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G.

¶11

2 - Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Awadhram Jaiswal Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 14 Chaurotola Mandhku Darri Tehsil Pendra Road, District-Gpm C.G.

¶12

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Oraon, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate for the State

¶15

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.)

Order on Board

20/04/2026

Present is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by learned Third District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. A/16/2026 whereby the application for urgent hearing of the suit has been rejected by the learned trial Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, he is prosecuting a suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendants. The plaintiff has filed the suit on 23.01.2026 before the learned trial Court, in the suit, he has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property and creating third party interest. On 13.02.2026, the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC, however, the said application was rejected on 13.02.2026 itself against which the petitioner had already preferred a WP(227) No. 279/2026 before this Court in which an interim order has been passed in favor of the petitioner restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest and the said writ petition is pending, however, when the plaintiff came to know that the said property has already been alienated before institution of suit by him, he filed an application for urgent hearing of the suit on 06.04.2026 which has been rejected by the learned trial Court. He would further submit that since the suit property has already been alienated by the defendants, the mutation of the name of the purchaser in the revenue record is already under process. He would further submit that if the name of the

¶21

¶22

prospective purchaser would be recorded in the revenue record, the suit land may again be alienated by the concerned parties, therefore, the plaintiff has filed an application for early hearing of the suit but the same has been rejected against which the present writ petition has been filed. He would also submit that though the case has been fixed before the learned trial Court on 24.04.2026, however, the learned trial Court in the garb of the order dated 12.03.2026 passed in WP(227) No. 279/2026, the learned trial Court is not proceeding with the case and waited for further order of this Court, though there is no stay of the further proceeding of the suit, therefore, the learned trial Court may be directed to hear the suit at the earliest.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the record.

¶24

From perusal of the record, it transpires that the suit for specific performance of the contract has been filed by the petitioner on 22.01.2026 and on 13.02.2026 his application under Order 39 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected by the learned trial Court against which the petitioner has filed WP(227) No. 279/2026 in which on 12.03.2026 an interim order has been passed and the said writ petition is still pending for its consideration. From the order sheets filed by the petitioner annexed at page No. 78 to 85, it transpires that the date of the proceeding has been fixed on 24.04.2026 before the learned trial Court for waiting for further orders of this Court in WP(227) No. 279/2026, it further transpires from the order sheet dated 18.03.2026 that in WP(227) No. 279/2026, the creating of third party interest over the suit property till the next date of hearing has been

¶25

¶26

stayed, however, the further proceeding of the case has not been stayed in the said writ petition. Since, the case has already been fixed before the learned trial Court on 24.04.2026, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceeding of the learned trial Court at this stage and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue their remedy before the learned trial Court by filing appropriate applications.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶29

Sumit

Ajay Sidara v. Renu Jogi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Sidara v. Renu Jogi

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

Santram Yadav Vs Executive Engineer

Ramkumari Kaushik Vs Smt. Kiran Bhajgawalli

Narottam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxmaniya Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rameshwar Kumar Mehar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Arti Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh