AMIT KUMAR DEWANGAN vs DAYARAM SAHU

1

CGHC010433112026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MA No. 157 of 2026
1 - Amit Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Sunder Lal Dewangan Aged About 46
Years R/o Village Katgi, Tahsil Kasdol, Distt Balodabazar Bhatapara C. G.
... Appellant (s)
versus
1 - Dayaram Sahu S/o Shri Dulariram Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o
Village Katgi, Tahsil Kasdol, Distt Balodabazar Bhatapara C. G.
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Balodabazar, Distt
Balodabazar Bhatapara C. G.
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sahil Sahu, Advocate
For State / Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Swati R. Gupta, PL
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment on Board
04/11/2026
The challenge in this Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred under Order 43
Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), is to the
order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the learned 1st District Judge,
Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (for short, ‘the Trial
Court’), in Civil Suit No. 06-B of 2026, whereby the application filed by the

2
appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking
temporary injunction has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that an agreement was
executed between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent No. 1/defendant
No. 1 for keeping the property comprised in a piece of Khasra No. 1212/05,
admeasuring 0.014 hectare, upon which a house is constructed, situated at
Village Katgi, P.H. No. 18, R.I.C. and Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.), as security / mortgage for a loan amount of Rs.
13,72,500/-. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the
said amount was to be paid by 16.03.2021 and, in the event of failure by
respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 to repay the amount, the sale deed of the
said property was to be executed and registered in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff or any other person nominated by the
appellant/plaintiff. In the event that the sale deed was not executed and
registered, the appellant/plaintiff would be at liberty to get it executed
through legal means. He further submits that, as the respondent No.
1/defendant No. 1 failed to return the aforesaid amount, the
appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.13,72,500/- before
the learned Trial Court. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was also filed, seeking a temporary injunction
restraining the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1, during the pendency of
the suit, from alienating the suit property by way of mortgage, sale, gift, will
or otherwise. However, by the impugned order, the learned Trial Court
rejected the said application.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned
trial Court has failed to appreciate that the suit property was kept as
security for repayment of the loan amount. He submits that, in the event of
alienation of the suit property in favour of a third party, the
appellant/plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and would face difficulty in

3
recovering the amount that may ultimately be decreed by the learned trial
Court. He further submits that, in view of the agreement executed between
the parties, a prima facie case exists in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and
the other two ingredients, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, are
also in his favour. These aspects have not been properly considered by the
learned trial Court while deciding the application. Therefore, the impugned
order deserves to be interfered with and the appeal may be admitted by
issuing notice to the respondents.
4. Ms. Swati, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 2 submits
that the dispute is essentially between the private parties and that the State
is merely a formal party to the proceedings.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended to the memo of appeal.
6. In order to obtain an order of temporary injunction under Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff is required to establish
three essential ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss. In the absence of any one of these ingredients, an order of
temporary injunction cannot be granted. From the admitted facts, it is
apparent that the suit has been filed for recovery of the aforesaid amount.
The respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 has also filed his written statement
as well as reply to the injunction application, categorically denying the
execution of the alleged agreement and pleading that the same is forged.
7. The learned trial Court, while deciding the application, observed that
the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of money and not for
specific performance of the contract. It further noted that the suit property
stands recorded in the revenue records in the name of respondent No.
1/defendant No. 1. Accordingly, it held that grant of injunction would cause
inconvenience and irreparable loss to respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1.
8. In the opinion of this Court, as the appellant/plaintiff has failed to

4
establish the three essential ingredients, as discussed above, the learned
trial Court has committed no illegality or material irregularity in passing
the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is
hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
Pawan