AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Reserved on 21.11.2023 Pronounced on 04.03.2024 MA No. 30 of 2020 • Pawan Agrawal S/o Late Sudhram Agrawal Aged About 65 Years Occupation Business, R/o Bajarpara, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh Through Power Of Attorney Bajrang Sharma S/o Shri Ram Sharan Sharma Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ambikapur Road, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus

1. Manohar Patel S/o Late Sudhakar Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mauhatikra, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh .................Plaintiff No. 01, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

2. Lilaram Patel S/o Late Sudhakar Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Mauhatikra, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh .................Plaintiff No. 02, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. M.A. Latif Rahman with Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocates For State : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Judgment

1. The appellant/defendant has preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the C.P.C. against the order dated

07.01.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10A/2019 by the Additional District Judge, Pathalgaon arising out of the order dated 27.06.2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 5A/2014. The learned first appellate Court while remanding back the matter to the Civil Court has allowed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of necessary party, application under Order 26 Rule 9,10,18 CPC for spot inspection and application under order 41 Rule 27 CPC for filing additional documents and remanded back the matter to the learned trial court with direction to implead the purchasers of land from original owner Bhojram, examine their sale deeds including the sale deeds of the vendors of the defendant namely Deendayal and Lilambar and also allow the newly added defendants to file written statement, lead evidence and after getting spot inspection from the Tahsildar Pathalgaon decide the case afresh.

2. For convenience plaintiffs and defendants are termed as it exists before the learned trial Court.

3. The brief facts as reflected from the plaint’s averments are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Pathalgaon against the defendant which was registered as civil suit No. 5A/2014 on 22/02/2014 for declaration of title, possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 246/5 area 1.178 Hecatares described in the Schedule-A of the plaint mainly contending that the suit property was purchased by them vide registered sale deed dated 04/07/1987 from the original owner Bhojram and they are in possession of the part of the suit property mentioned with red ink in the Schedule-A of the Plaint. The defendant has tried to dispossess the plaintiffs on 08/02/2013 by digging pit and a wrong panchnama was prepared by the Revenue Inspector on 14/02/2013 wherein the land was shown as the land belongs to defendant, therefore, the plaintiffs did not sign it. It has been further contended that the plaintiffs initially approached the Tahsildar, Pathalgaon and in Revenue Case no. 01/A-6/2010-2011 got the order of Map corrected vide order dated 18/10/2010. Thereafter, they have preferred an appeal before the SDO, Pathalgaon who has set aside the order on 12/08/2011 passed by the Tahsildar. In view of wrong map prepared by Revenue Inspector on

12/10/2010 the defendant is claiming possession over the suit property which has necessitated the plaintiffs to file suit for declaration, possession and grant of permanent injunction.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint mainly contending that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property on 04.07.1987 and has taken possessi