1 2025:CGHC:16987 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 92 of 2025 Smt. Kalpana Shrivastava W/o Shri Narendra Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 62 Years R/o Sector-10 Quarter No. 12 C, Street No. 12, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Bhanu Dewangan S/o Plaintiff Chandrabhan Dewangan Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 431, Mukut Nagar, Titurdih, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Junior Engineer Railway Zone Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. R. K. Gomasta, Advocate For State : Mr. Shailesh Puria, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board 11 / 04 /202 5 1. This civil revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.16 17:42:33 +0530 2 order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit Class A/104/2017, whereby, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the trial Court for declaration of title and injunction against the applicant/defendant No.1 in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.23/20 measuring 2400 square feet situated at Ghandhinagar, Risali Ward No.63, P.H. No.19/22, Bhilai, District Durg pleading that he had purchased the said land from Sarvesh Malik by registered sale deed on 21.09.2025 and taken possession from the seller. However, the applicant/defendant No.1 purchased the said land from Leelavati Verma on 23.07.2008 and illegally possessed over the suit land. Subsequently, demarcation was conducted wherein it was found that on 8.6.2012, an application under Section 129 of the Land Revenue Code was moved by the applicant before the Tehsildar which was registered as Case No. 421/A- 12/2012-13; notice was issued to the respondent No.1 and he participated in the proceeding, and thereafter, order of demarcation was passed by the Tehsildar. The demarcation was carried out by the Revenue Inspector on 19.9.2013 and the applicant was found in possession of land which he had 3 purchased through a registered sale-deed. The respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Durg along with an application for condonation of delay and same was allowed vide order dated 8.8.2014 on the ground that while carrying out the second demarcation, the petitioner was not heard though he had sufficient documents and thus, the learned Additional Collector set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar and remitted back the matter to Tehsildar to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing. 3. The applicant preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and vide order dated 28.1.2017, the order passed by the Collector has been set aside and the order passed by the Tehsildar has been restored on the ground that while carrying out demarcation, the officer has demarcated the land of applicant on the basis of boundaries mentioned in the registered sale-deed and same is evident from order dated 21.6.2013, passed by the Tehsildar. Against the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 28.01.2017, the respondent no.1 preferred a writ petition (WP227 No. 478/2017) before this High Court which dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2013 holding that the proceeding as well as the demarcation was carried out in accordance with law. Thereafter, the applicant filed the application under Order 7 4 & Rule 11 of CPC which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 22.02.2025 against which the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prays for setting aside of the said order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the revision. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In the order in question dated 22.02.2025, three applications of the plaintiff; i) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 11.05.2017, ii) under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC dated 06.07.2019 & under Order 14 Rule 5 were allowed whereas one application under Order 26 Rule 9, Order 39 Rule 7 of CPC was rejected and the application of defendant No.1 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was rejected. Before passing the impugned order, the direction of the High Court regarding illegal possession has been complied with and additional issues have also been framed regarding illegal possession. 5 8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order by the trial Court, to enteretain the instant Civil Revision. 9. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant Revision is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal JUDGE Khatai