Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

2025:CGHC:15213 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 283 of 2025 Mukha Devi W/o Rajendra Singh Aged About 77 Years R/o Behind Hindu Milan Mandir, Hemu Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.), (Plaintiff).

... Petitioner versus

1- Smt. Kalpana Singh W/o Arun Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o House of Ram Kumar Chandra, Balaji Green City, Mopka, Quarter No.-15, Gulab Nagar, Tahsil And District-

Bilaspur (C.G.)(Defendants).

2- Arun Singh Aged About 37 Years Presently R/o Balaji Green City, Mopka, Quarter No.-15, Gulab Nagar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.).

3- State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.).

4- Sarkari Karmachari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit Mopka, Through President, Registration No.-3157, Registered Address - Mopka, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s)

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

01.04.2025

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.

10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set-aside the impugned order passed by II Addl. Judge to the Court of Ist Civil Judge Jr. Division, Bilaspur/ Learned trial court in Civil Suit No. (A)/272/2022-on dated 16.12.2024, in the interest of justice.

10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

2) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned IInd Additional Civil Judge to the learned Ist Civil Judge Junior Division Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 272A/2022, whereby the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) seeking appointment of a Commissioner for demarcation of the suit land has been rejected.

3) Facts of the present case are as under:-

A. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction, and possession over Survey No. 993/1 N/21, admeasuring 240 sq. ft., situated at Village Mopka, Patwari Circle No. 29, Tehsil and District Bilaspur.

B. It is pleaded that Plot No. 42 belongs to the petitioner, whereas Plot No. 43 admeasuring 240 sq. ft. belongs to her husband. Both plots are in their possession.

C. The petitioner claims to have purchased the suit plot through a registered sale deed dated 17.01.2001 from Sarkari Karmachari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Bilaspur. It is pleaded that in January 2022, when the plaintiff visited her plot, she found that defendants No. 1 & 2 had demolished the boundary wall of her plot. Thereafter, an application under Section 250 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 was moved before the Tehsildar, who passed a stay order on 29.01.2020 against defendants No.1 & 2.

D. The petitioner further claims that defendants No. 1 & 2 subsequently started raising construction on the suit property. The Tehsildar issued a direction for the demarcation of the land in proceedings of 250 of the Code, 1959. The revenue authorities submitted the demarcation report before the Tehsildar and the application moved by the petitioner under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 was dismissed.

E. The petitioner moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC in pending civil suit for the appointment of a Commissioner for the demarcation of the suit property.

F. The defendants opposed the application contending that the plaintiff’s application under Section 250 of the CGLRC was rejected by the Tehsildar. They submitted that the demarcation had already been conducted by the Revenue Inspector pursuant to the order passed by the Tehsildar in R