Digitally signed by PAWAN 2026:CGHC:9769 PAWAN KUMAR KUMAR D 20 a 2 te 6 : .02.26 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1195 of 2024

1 - Bhagat Ram S/o Late Umend Singh Kanwar Aged About 57 Years R/o Railway Colony Bangla No. B- 8, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Harsh Singh S/o Vijay Singh Aged About 35 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In Ordersheet/ Oblong As Singh Sar) R/o Girls Higher Secondary School Gumber Petrol Pump Gali No. 4 Torwa Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant) ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order on Board

24/02/2026 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the learned 3^rd Civil Judge Junior Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, CG in Civil Suit (A) No. 217 of 2019. By the order impugned, the application of the petitioner under Order Rule 26 Rule 9 CPC was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject property involved in the present writ petition is comprised in piece of Khasra No. 1282/25, area 2250 square feet P.H. No. 22/3, R.I.C. Bilaspur situated within the municipal limits of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, in Ward No. 48/42, Shaheed Hemu Colony Nagar. The petitioner who is the plaintiff in the civil suit has filed a suit for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction alleging that the respondent is in illegal encroachment of the subject property and is raising unauthorized construction thereon. A specific prayer has been made seeking restraint against the respondent from entering upon the subject property and from carrying out any construction over the same. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking appointment of a Commissioner for demarcation of the subject property. It has been specifically pleaded in the said application that the respondent has already encroached, or is in the process of encroaching upon the subject land and that in the absence of proper demarcation the reliefs claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the civil suit cannot be effectively adjudicated. The learned Trial Court, however, committed a manifest error in rejecting the said application by the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC ought to be allowed by directing appointment of a Commissioner for demarcation of the subject property.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that along with the plaint, the petitioner had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 17.03.2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.). Learned counsel submits that categorical findings have been recorded by both the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Appellate Court while deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the appeal arising therefrom. It has been held that the dispute relating to the subject property pertains to one Jeetu Singh Thakur and that certain litigation's had already been initiated by the petitioner against the said Jeetu Singh Thakur before the Revenue Court. It is further submitted that the respondent is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the dispute. The suit itself is not maintainable in the absence of impleadment of the proper and necessary party namely Jeetu Singh Thakur. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Civil Judge ha