1 2025:CGHC:45568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 229 of 2025 Melaram Gambheer S/o Late Bodhram Gambheer Aged About 50 Years R/o In Front Dr. K.K. Sahu Hospital Main Road Balodabazar District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1 ) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Hariram Jangde S/o Devnath Jangde Aged About 45 Years R/o Balodabazar District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 2 - Arti Saluja (Wrongly Mentiioned As Arti Saluza) W/o Sundar Saluja (Wrongly Mentioned As Sundar Saluza) Aged About 42 Years R/o Near I.C.I.C.I. Bank Kawardha District - Kawardha (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2 ) 3 - Uvaraj S/o Rajkumar Gambhir Aged About 16 Years R/o In Front Of I.C.I.C.I. Bank Kawardha Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Balodabazar District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 For State : : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Ist Civil Judge, Senior Division, Balodabazar, whereby the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for framing of additional issues, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the present case are as under: A. The respondent no.1/plaintiff instituted a suit before the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Balodabazar, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 56/42, Rakba 0.01 hectare (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land") situated at Village–Khairghata, P.H. No.6, Tehsil and District– Balodabazar. B. The husband of defendant no.2 purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 22.12.2003 from one Gurucharan S/o Hari Singh Chawla. After the death of her husband, the property was mutated in the name of defendant no.2. The plaintiff contends that in 2011, defendant no.2 contracted a second marriage with one Sundar Saluja. Thereafter, defendant no.1, claiming himself to be the legal heir, got his name mutated in the revenue records. Upon learning this fact, defendant no.2 approached the Tehsildar, Balodabazar, who, by order dated 27.02.2015, directed mutation of her name in place of defendant no.1. C. Defendant no.2 subsequently sold the suit land to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 13.03.2015, and the plaintiff claims to be in possession thereof. However, defendant no.1 preferred an 3 appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balodabazar, who, by order dated 15.09.2016, set aside the order of the Tehsildar and restored the name of defendant no.1 in the revenue records. D. The plaintiff pleaded that he is a bona fide purchaser, and the suit property was the self-acquired property of Late Rajkumar Gambhir. After his death, defendant no.2, being a Class-I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, became the sole owner and thus had valid title to transfer the land in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction. E. Defendant no.1, in his written statement, denied the plaintiff’s case and pleaded that after the death of Rajkumar Gambhir, defendant no.2 executed an agreement admitting that she had severed all rights over the property of her late husband as she had contracted a second marriage with Sundar Saluja. He further alleged collusion between defendant no.2 and the plaintiff, contending that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was void and that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands. F. Defendant no.2 filed her written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed five issues by order dated 24.02.2020. However, no specific issue was framed regarding the alleged agreement dated 25.05.2011 between defendant nos.1 and 2 or regarding the alleged collusion. Defendant no.1, therefore, filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and ultimately rejected by the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 29.01.2025. 4 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court erred in not framing an issue regarding the agreement dated 25.05.2011, which was specifically pleaded in the written statement, and also regarding the alleged collusion between the plaintiff, defendant no.2, and one Yuvraj. It is argued that proper issues are essential for adjudication of the controversy, and the Trial Court misdirected itself by rejecting the application solely on the ground that no counter-claim was filed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents support the order impugned and submit that the Trial Court has already framed comprehensive issues covering the controversy, and no further issues are necessary. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and perused the material on record. 6. The issues framed by the Trial Court on 24.02.2020 already include an issue relating to the validity of the sale deed dated 13.03.2015 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, with respect to the agreement dated 25.05.2011 between defendant nos.1 and 2, the petitioner would be at liberty to adduce evidence before the Trial Court while contesting the validity of the sale deed. Hence, no separate issue is required on this aspect. 7. However, with regard to the allegation of collusion between the plaintiff, defendant no.2, and Yuvraj, the pleadings in the written statement do disclose a material proposition of fact which requires adjudication. The Trial Court failed to frame a specific issue on this aspect, which, in my considered view, is necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 is modified to the extent that one additional issue shall be framed by the Trial Court on 5 the question of collusion, and the parties shall be given liberty to lead evidence thereon. Prayer for framing of other proposed issues is declined. 9. The petition is partly allowed to the extend indicated hereinabove. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE NADIM