2024:CGHC:45206 AVINASH NAFR SHARMA Digitally signed HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2024.11.21 17:49:52 +0530 WP227 No. 1050 of 2024

1 - Mukund Dammani S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Dammani, Aged About 53 Years Occupation Business, R/o D-572, Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Plaintiff).

... Petitioner.

versus

1 - Smt. Mamta Hinduja W/o Late Laxmandas Hinduja, R/o House No. 57 And

58, Geetanjali Society, Shanar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Ashok Nainwani S/o Late Shri Raghumal Nainwani, R/o Near Mahima Hospital, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh And Golden Marbal, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Dilip Hinduja S/o Tikammal Hinjuja, R/o Siddhi Vinayak World, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

20/11/2024

1. This Petition has been filed against the order dated 12.09.2024, whereby objection raised by the petitioner/plaintiff against the demarcation report dated 24.02.2024 carried out by Naib Tehsildar in pursuance of the direction of the trial Court i.e. 14^th Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raipur in pending Civil Suit No.225A/2013, was disallowed, wherein petitioner had also raised a demand for fresh demarcation.

2. Necessary facts of the case are that plaintiff had earlier filed a civil suit against Ramkhilawan Parganiha for specific performance of agreement to sell bearing Civil Suit No.2A/2008 and vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.2011, learned 9^th Additional District Judge FTC, Raipur had decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and directed Ramkhilawan Parganiha for execution of registered sale deed in respect of subject land bearing Khasra No.222/2 & 222/4, total admeasuring area 8856 sq. ft. sitatued at Tikrapara, Raipur. Judgment debtor Ram Khilawan parganiha failed to execute the aforesaid sale deed. Therefore, petitioner filed an execution proceeding which is still pending before 9^th Additional District Judge, Raipur. During pendency of the aforesaid execution case, respondent No.2 started raising construction over pieces of subject land. Therefore, the present civil suit bearing No.225A/2013 has been filed before 14^th Civil Judge Junior Division, Raipur for permanent injunction without impleading RamKhilwan Parganiha. In the said civil suit, petitioner/plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC which had already been rejected by the trial Court on 01.07.2014, against which a writ petition bearing WP227 No.736 of 2014 was filed and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2018 with a direction to the trial Court to decide the said application afresh. Thereafter the said application was allowed and in pursuance of the same, Naib Tehsildar filed his demarcation report dated 24.02.2024. Learned trial court upon hearing the objection, by the impugned order dated 12.09.2024, disallowed the objection raised by the petitioner and the demand of petitioner for fresh demarcation was turned down. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the objection as no proper demarcation was carried out. He would further submit that Batankan has already been made in the original Khasra No.222 but in the demarcation report, the said fact has been wrongly mentioned and he prays to allow the petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

5. In the impugned order, the learned trial court has made an observation that petitioner/plaintiff has an opportunity to examine the Commissioner who has prepared the report. Therefore, this Court would only observe that evaluation of the Commissioner’s report and the statement of the Commissioner shall be ascertained at the time of final adjudication of the case. At this juncture, the learned trial Court has rightly