Darap Singh @ Devraj Vs Smt. Saraswati Devi

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:818

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 6 of 2025

¶6

Darap Singh @ Devraj S/o Shri Ramsingh Aged About 68 Years R/o Quba Khurd, Tahsil Pandariya, Dist - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶7

Bodhan Singh @ Dirgan Singh S/o Shri Ramsingh Aged About 65 Years R/o Quba Khurd, Tahsil Pandariya, Dist - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶8

Nain Singh S/o Shri Ramsingh Aged About 57 Years R/o Quba Khurd, Tahsil Pandariya, Dist - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶9

Smt. Sharda Devi W/o Shri Darap Singh Thakur Aged About 67 Years R/o Quba Khurd, Tahsil Pandariya, Dist - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶10

Smt. Shakuntalabai W/o Shri Rohan Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Quba Khurd, Tahsil Pandariya, Dist - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶11

Parmeshwar Singh S/o Shatruhan Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Quba Khurd, Tahsil Pandariya, Dist - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

Smt. Saraswati Devi D/o Shri Bali Singh, W/o Shri Bahoran Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sukul Para Ward No. 03, Nawagadh, Tahsil Nawagadh, Dist - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶15

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶16

Mohan Singh S/o Bodhan Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Quba Khurd, Tahsil - Pandariya, Dist - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Petitioners/Defendants No. : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate along with 1A to 1F Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocate For State/Defendant No. 2 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

0 7.01.2025

2

The petitioners have challenged the order passed by II nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandariya, District Kabirdham in Civil Suit No. 10-A/2018 dated 06.11.2024, whereby, the application moved by the petitioners under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC was allowed and vide order dated 02.12.2024, the application moved under Order 14 Rule 5(2) of CPC has been rejected.

¶25

Mr. Ravindra Sharma, counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale-deeds executed by her father Bali Singh in favour of the petitioners be declared null and void and for partition, possession and permanent injunction over various survey numbers. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC was moved by the petitioners for framing additional issues, they are :-

¶26

i. Whether the petitioners/purchasers of the suit property are title holders of the land purchased through sale-deeds dated 01.09.2018 and 22.02.2019?

¶27

ii. Whether the defendants are entitled to get the decree of permanent injunction against the plaintiff ?

¶28

He would further submit that the plaintiff filed a reply to the application and proposed two issues:-

¶29

a) Whether defendants No. 1A to 1F and 3 are bonafide purchasers of the suit property ?

¶30

b) Whether the sale-deed executed by Late Bali Singh in favour of defendants No. 1A to 1F and defendant No. 1F in favor of defendant No. 3 is binding upon the plaintiff?

¶31

He would also submit that the learned trial Court allowed the issues

¶32

3

¶33

proposed by the plaintiff as well as the defendants. It is contended that an application was moved to strike out the additional issues framed on the basis of the reply of the plaintiff. It is further contended that as no application was moved by the plaintiff for framing additional issues and in reply two issues were proposed; therefore, the learned trial Court committed an error of law in allowing such application.

¶34

On the other hand, Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the learned Civil Court has the power to frame issues after going through the pleadings.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶36

Order 14 of the CPC deals with the settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Order 14 Rule 1 of CPC states about framing issues. According to the provisions of Order 14 Rule 1 of CPC, issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other.

¶37

Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC deals with the power to amend and strike out issues. This provision gives exclusive discretion to the concerned Court to frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and which are necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties. According to sub-rule 2, the Court may strike out any issues that appear to be wrongly framed or introduced before passing a decree.

¶38

In the present case, the dispute revolves around sale-deeds executed by Late Bali Singh in favour of defendants No. 1A to 1F. The issues proposed

¶39

4

¶40

by the plaintiff and defendants appear to be valid looking to the controversy involved in the case. Though no application was moved by the plaintiff for framing additional issues, the learned Court exercising the power under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC may frame such issues as it thinks fit to determine the matter in controversy between the parties.

¶41

10. Taking into consideration the facts of the instant case and provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order(s) passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s). d

¶42

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶43

$iddhant

Darap Singh @ Devraj v. Smt. Saraswati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darap Singh @ Devraj v. Smt. Saraswati Devi

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

Shyamlal Nayak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chandrabhan Singh (Died and Deleted) Through LRs. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Dhruwe Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramakant Rathore Vs Kamal Prasad Yadav

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Dhannulal Yadav