2026:CGHC:5724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 289 of 2022

1 - Ravishanker Gupta S/o Late Sundarlal Gupta Aged About 67 Years R/o 6b, Mandira Block, Merlin Jaishree Vihar, Mandi Road, Pandri Tarai, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shivshanker Gupta S/o Late Sundarlal Gupta Aged About 60 Years R/o 6b, Mandira Block, Merlin Jaishree Vihar, Mandi Road, Pandri Tarai, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Om Prakash Gupta S/o Late Surajpal Gupta Aged About 64 Years R/o Near Hajari Hotel Gandhi Chowk, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Durgaprsad Gupta (Kesarwani) S/o Late Surajpal Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o P 73, Liberty Colony, Village Samardha, Post Mandideep, Bhopal (M.P.) 3 - Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani S/o Late Surajpal Gupta Aged About 52 Years R/o Mahamaya Electrical Near Hajari Hotel, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 4 - Vikash Kesarwani S/o Surajpal Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Deepshikha General Stores, Smriti Nagar Market Post Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Collector, Koriya (C.G.) 6 - Ajit Singh S/o Shivmurti Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Amakherva Road, Near Dr. Sinha House, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya Business Spot Jhagrakhand Road Infront Of Khan Narsingh Home, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Other respondents : None.

({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

Order on Board

02/02/2026 Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24/03/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Manendragarh, District–Koriya, C.G. in civil suit No.52A/2019 whereby three different applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The first application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 2 CPC which was registered as I.A.No.1/2022 before the Civil Judge was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit property comprised in piece of khasra No.343/10 total area 0.479 hectare (1.185 acre) situated at Manendragarh, District-Koriya, C.G. Further prayer was also made that the mutation entry made in the revenue records in favour of the respondent is null, void and illegal. Injunction was also sought with regard to interference of the possession and restraining the respondent to sell the suit property. The written statement was also filed and witnesses of the plaintiff were also examined. An application under Order 16 Rule 2 CPC was filed with a prayer that one sale deed dated 22/03/1965 and family settlement dated 11/07/1969 were registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Manendragarh in order to prove that the Sub-Registrar of Manendragarh was required to be called as a witness. Apart from this, a will dated 23/12/1991 was also registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Raipur and in order to prove that, the Sub-Registrar, Raipur is required to be called through summons. Thus, the application was filed. The application was resisted by the respondents and vide the impugned order, the application was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law as the Sub-Registrar, Manendragarh and Sub-Registrar, Raipur are specifically mentioned in the list of witnesses submitted before the learned Civil Judge. Since these are Government officials, they are required to be summoned from the Court, thus, rejection of the application is bad in law. The rejection of the application is only on the ground that the application was filed belatedly and as the case is an old one, it has to be decided expeditiously.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 supports the impugned order and submits that the will dated 23/12/1991 which the petitioner wanted to prove by calling the Sub-Registrar, Raipur, is required to be proved in accor