Praveen Kumar Soni Vs Jitendra Yadav

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:16006

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WP227 No. 95 of 2020

¶7

Praveen Kumar Soni S/o Late Kamal Narayan Soni Aged About 58 Years R/o Purana Ganj Mandir, Ramsagarpara, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1- Jitendra Yadav S/o Shri Parasram Yadav Aged About 56 Years R/o B-121, Kota Colony, Near Gyatri Mandir, Kota, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2- The State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur , Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For respondent No.1 : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

04.04.2025

-2-

1. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the learned Seventh Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.353-A/2018 dated 04.01.2020 whereby, an application moved under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC was rejected.

¶17

Mr. Mahobia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that a suit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction and for mesne profit against defendant No.1 in respect of the suit land mentioned in the plaint itself. He would further submit that the petitioner purchased the suit land bearing Survey No.129/2 admeasuring 2100 sq.ft. through a registered sale deed dated 09.03.1989 from one Chaituram. He would contend that the plaintiff moved an application for diversion and after diversion, the survey number got changed from 129/2 to 129/11. He would further contend that defendant No.1 started raising construction over part of the suit property, therefore, an application for demarcation was moved before the Tehsildar, Raipur. He would also submit that the concerned Tehsildar directed the revenue inspector and Patwari to submit the report on 10.06.2014 but till date, no demarcation has been conducted and the report has not been submitted. He would further argue that looking at the dispute with regard to boundaries and identification of the plot, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was moved before the learned Trial Court for the appointment of the Commissioner. He would also argue that the learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.01.2020 rejected the application on the ground that the matter is at its initial stage and the plaintiff cannot collect evidence through the Court. He would further state that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application to resolve the dispute involved in the case.

¶18

1. On the other hand, Mr. Kesharwani, the learned counsel appearing for

¶19

-3-

¶20

respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that an application for demarcation was moved before the concerned Tehsildar, Raipur and the same is still pending consideration. He would contend that the petitioner may pursue the said application and after demarcation, he may produce the demarcation report before the Court below to substantiate his case.

¶21

1. Mr. Agrawal, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the order passed by the learned Court below.

¶22

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶23

1. A perusal of the plaint would make it clear that an application moved by the petitioner for demarcation is still pending consideration before the Tehsildar, Raipur. In that proceeding, a memo was issued by the Tehsildar to the Revenue Inspector and Patwari to submit a report and a notice was also published on 08.05.2015.

¶24

1. Taking into consideration the fact that the application moved by the petitioner for demarcation is still pending consideration before the Tehsildar, Raipur and at the same time, the petitioner moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC in the pending civil suit, in the opinion of this Court, no order can be passed in favour of the petitioner at this stage on the application moved under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. As an application moved by the petitioner for the demarcation under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is pending consideration before the Tehsildar, Raipur, the petitioner is permitted to pursue that application.

¶25

1. The concerned Tehsildar is directed to conclude the proceeding of demarcation

¶26

-4-

¶27

within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

1. The petitioner would be at liberty to place the demarcation report before the learned trial Court. It is expected that the revenue authorities shall provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant No.1 while conducting the demarcation.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

Nadim

Praveen Kumar Soni v. Jitendra Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Soni v. Jitendra Yadav

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

Secretary C.G.Swatantra Mazd. Vs the C.M.D. Secl and Anr.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Prabha Sahu

Mukesh Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Divya Singh Sisodiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Shyam Sundar Agrawal Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh