1 2025:CGHC:16869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 327 of 2025 1. Sanjaymal Lunawat S/o Chandmal Lunawat Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Congress Bhawan, Gawli Para Durg (C.G.) 2. Smt. Mamta Lunawat W/o Sanjaymal Lunawat Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Congress Bhawan, Gawli Para Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Shri Preetpal Belchandan S/o Shri Bhudhar Belchandan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Tirga, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 2. Shri Santosh Kothari S/o Shri Sohan Lal Kothari Aged About 48 Years R/o. Durg, Gavlipara, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners/Plaintiffs : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11. 04.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging therein the order passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 20A of 2017 dated 04.02.2025, whereby an application moved under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC has been rejected. 2. A perusal of the plaint filed as Annexure P/1 would reveal that a suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners to declare the sale-deed dated 02.05.2016 as null and void. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, the plaintiffs/petitioners moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC on the ground that some part of the suit property has been sold by defendant SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.15 18:49:28 +0530 2 No. 1 to defendant No. 2, therefore, the demarcation of the property is necessary. 3. A reply was filed by the defendants. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiffs/petitioners failed to produce documents to establish that part of survey Nos. 467/4/घ, 468/4/घ has been sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that defendant No. 1 alienated part of the suit property to defendant No. 2; therefore, the appointment of the Commissioner is necessary, and the learned trial Court committed an error of law while rejecting the application. 5. Heard. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs have filed a suit to declare the sale-deed null and void and there is no dispute with regard to the identification of land or its boundaries; in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for the appointment of a Commissioner and the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application. 7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant