1 2025:CGHC:29096 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 89 of 2021 1 - Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandalt Through Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal, Division Bilaspur , Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Sunil Kumar Sahu President Abhisek Vihar Colony, Mangla, Bilaspur R/o Abhisek Vihar Colony, Mangla, Bilaspur , Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Om Sai Sewa Samiti Abhisek Vihar Phase 1, Mangla, Bilaspur Through Secretary, Abhay Kumar Soni R/o Abhisek Vihar Phase 1, Mangla, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Judgment on Board 30/6/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12-1-2021 passed by the learned 2nd Upper District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 142A/2018, upholding the judgment and decree dated 6-9-2018 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.07.01 16:17:34 +0530 2 Class 1, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 123A/2013, whereby the civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of his title and permanent injunction has been dismissed. (hereinafter, parties shall be referred as per their description before the trial Court.) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, plaintiff filed suit pleading inter alia that, defendants No. 1 and 3 encroached 14 x 14 Sq. Ft. land out of 3828 sq.mt. land of plaintiff bearing Khasra No. 95/1 situated at Mangla, Bilaspur and constructed a temple. Despite efforts made, the defendants No. 1 and 3 did not vacate the encroached area, therefore, plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration of its title and permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 and 3. 4. The defendant No. 3 filed its written statement and denied the pleading of the plaintiff. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the pleading of the parties and evidence adduced by them, dismissed the civil suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by the 1st appellate Court. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, defendants No. 1 and 3 have denied said encroachment and the same has already been held by both the Courts below on account of lack of documentary evidence. Though, documents to substantiate the claim of plaintiff have not been filed, but vide oral evidence of two plaintiff’s witnesses, claim of the plaintiff has been proved. He 3 further submits that, that evidence was not accepted by learned Courts below only because, plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence, hence, the same is perverse and illegal and deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 2 submits that, State is a formal party in this case. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Dispute pertains to the encroachment of part and parcel of area of plaintiff’s land bearing Khasra No. 95/1. To substantiate this fact, plaintiff ought to have got demarcated aforesaid land to ascertain the fact that whether defendants No. 1 and 3 have encroached said portion of land or not, but no such document/demarcation report etc. has been filed. Even not a single document has been proved by the plaintiff in support of its contention. Further, oral evidence deposed by plaintiff’s witnesses is also completely flimsy and baseless. It seems that, Chhattisgarh Housing Board has filed instant civil suit to protect its skin and to justify undue benefits got by defendants No. 1 and 3, if it is so as not adducing cogent evidence by plaintiff in form of any document, supports aforesaid fact. 10. Perusal of judgments passed by both the learned Courts below shows that, the issue has been discussed in detail by them in their judgments. On due consideration, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned 4 1st appellate Court upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dismissing the civil suit filed by the appellants/plaintiff. No substantial question of law is found to be framed in instant second appeal. Hence, instant second appeal is dismissed at admission stage, upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as 1st appellate Court. 11. In view of above, instant second appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No order as to cost(s). 12. Decree be drawn accordingly. 13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak