Dismissed¶42

Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited v. Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2026WP227/763/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed — challenge to rejection of Order 39 Rule 7 CPC application in Civil Suit No. 30-A/2014 (First Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur); status quo order dated 09/01/2019 pending demarcation report for Khasra No. 213/03; earlier similar application rejected 12/12/2018; alleged encroachment by defendants despite subsisting interim injunction; no illegality found in impugned order dated 26/07/2022; Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited v. Anil Kumar Agarwal and others.

What did the court decide?

The learned trial Court, vide order dated 09/01/2019, directed demarcation of the land bearing Khasra No. 213/03 and directed the parties to maintain status quo over the land till receipt of the demarcation report; the demarcation report is still awaited. ¶40

Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited Vs Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:248

NAFR

SOURABH BHILWAR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.01.06 10:51:17 +0530

¶7

WP227 No. 763 of 2022

¶8

Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited Registered Office 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Mahalaxmi Mumbai (Maharastra), Through Incharge Bhilai Unit Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 71 Years, S/o Late Shri L.N.Agarwal, 1/45, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri L.N. Agrawal Director, Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited, Registered Office 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Mahalaxmi Mumbai (Maharastra)

¶12

2 - Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited Registered Office 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Mahalaxmi Mumbai (Maharastra), Through Director Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 66 Years, S/o Late L.N.Agarwal

¶13

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Heera Dhimar (Dead) Through LRs

¶15

4 A- Devnarayan Dhimar S/o Late Heeru Dhimar Aged About 46 Years R/o Tikarapara Gobarpara, Near Shitla Mandir, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶16

5 - Rajendra Kumar (Dead) Through LRs

¶17

¶18

5 A- Shrimati Gayatri Devi W/o Late Rajendra Dhimar R/o Shitla Chowk Dhimar Para, Near Shitla Mandir Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶19

5 B- Anand Dhimar S/o Late Rajendra Dhimar R/o Shitla Chowk Dhimar Para, Near Shitla Mandir Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶20

6 - Hiralal (Dead) Through LRs

¶21

6 A- Smt. Shanti D/o Late Hiralal R/o Shitla Chowk, Dhimar Para Near Shitla Mandir Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶22

6 B- Devraj S/o Lte Hiralal Ganga R/o Shitla Chowk, Dhimar Para Near Shitla Mandir Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶23

6 C- Suraj S/o Hiralal R/o Shitla Chowk, Dhimar Para Near Shitla Mandir Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶24

6 D- Surya S/o Late Hiralal R/o Shitla Chowk, Dhimar Para Near Shitla Mandir Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶25

7 - Smt. Triveni W/o Shambhu, R/o Tikrapara Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶26

8 - Smt. Ganga W/o Late Bharat, R/o Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶27

9 - Smt. Jamuna W/o Sukhu, R/o Tikrapara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶28

10 - Latulu Ram S/o Sarha Sonkar, R/o Lakhenagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶29

... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶30

¶31

For Petitioner	: Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate
For Respondents/ State For Respondents	: Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate
No.4(A) & 7
For Respondent No.10	: Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prakash Kumar Thakur, Advocate

¶32

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board

¶33

05/01/2026

¶34

By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 26/07/2022 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 30-A/2014, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been rejected.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the order dated 09/01/2019 passed by the learned trial Court directing the parties to maintain status quo till receipt of the demarcation report, the defendants are encroaching upon the land in question in violation of the said order. She further submits that the petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC, which has been rejected on the ground that a similar application filed earlier had already been disposed of vide order dated 12/12/2018, and the demarcation report is still awaited. Learned counsel would contend that in view of the alleged encroachment by the defendants despite the subsisting interim injunction, rejection of the said application is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as the State would submit that the learned trial Court has already

¶37

¶38

passed an order dated 09/01/2019 directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land bearing Khasra No. 213/03, and has also directed demarcation of the land. Since the demarcation report is yet to be received, rejection of the application under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC is just, proper, and warranting any interference of this Court.

¶39

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended herewith.

¶40

From perusal of the record and the documents, it is evident that the learned trial Court, vide order dated 09/01/2019, directed demarcation of the land in question bearing Khasra No. 213/03, and the demarcation report is still awaited. It is also apparent that the parties were directed to maintain status quo over the land in question till receipt of the demarcation report.

¶41

Further perusal of the impugned order reveals that an earlier application filed under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC had already been rejected on 12/12/2018, and the direction to maintain status quo continues to operate between the parties, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity, or infirmity in the order dated 26/07/2022 passed by the learned trial Court.

¶42

Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶45

$. Bhilwar

Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited v. Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Ventures (India) Limited v. Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal

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

Smt. Ayusha Choure Vs Raja Thapa

Umabai Vs Kalam Prasad

Sanjay Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Neha Mahajan Vs Umashankar Sinha

Lakhan Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uttam Kumar Vs Urmila Bai