Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date:

2026.02.17 1 +0530

2026:CGHC:8001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1368 of 2025  Sanjeev Kumar Sonthaliya S/o Late Santosh Kumar Sonthaliya Aged About 57 Years R/o Juni Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present R/o- L-7, Vinoba Nagar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.), Mo. No. 9691136099 ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. Sanjay Agrawal S/o Late Ramchandra Agrawal Aged About 48 Years Director - Rama Real Estate Private Limited, R/o Ward No. 14, Vinoba Nagar Ward, Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur, Police Station- Tarbahar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Rajeev Agrawal S/o Late Ramchandra Agrawal Aged About 47 Years Director- Rama Real Estate Private Limited, R/o Ward No. 14, Vinoba Nagar Ward, Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur, Police Station- Tarbahar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Bilaspur, District-

Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate No. 1 & 2 assisted by Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate For Respondent No. : Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

13.2.2026

1) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by learned Eleventh District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.

34-A/2025 dated 24.11.2025 whereby application moved by petitioner/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC has been rejected.

2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner/ plaintiff filed suit for possession, damages and mandatory injunction inter-alia on the ground that plaintiff purchased Shops No. GS-7, GS-8, GS-9 and GS-10 situated at ground floor of Rama Port Commercial Complex, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur in sale consideration of Rs. 1 Crore through registered sale-deed dated 31.3.2013 and agreement was entered into between plaintiff and defendants on the same date. Defendants had agreed to complete the construction of stairs, glasswork and finishing work before handing over possession. Plaintiff pleaded that defendants have not handed over possession till date, therefore complaint was made and legal notice was sent to defendants and thereafter suit was filed. Defendants filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. They pleaded that construction work of all four shops is complete and plaintiff failed to take possession of suit shops. During pendency of suit, plaintiff moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of local commissioner for physical inspection of four shops to ascertain as to whether defendants have completed construction work or not. Defendants filed reply to said application and stated that issue with regard to completion of construction work can be proved by leading evidence and plaintiff cannot collect evidence with the help of Court. Learned trial Court vide order dated 24.11.2025 rejected the application.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff submits that plaintiff has claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs per month from defendants as possession has not been handed over yet, therefore reliefs sought in the plaint, particularly reliefs (b) and (c) can only be ascertained by appointment of local commissioner who can physically inspect the premises and submit a report regarding the current status of construction, therefore learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. He contends that by exercising power under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, it is the duty of the Court to pass order for appointment of local commissioner to elucidate any matter in dispute. He argues that there is dispute with regard to stage of construction of suit shops, therefore application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was maintainable before learned Court below.

4) On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2/ defendants submits that plaintiff cannot collect evidence with the help of Court by appointment of local com