1 2025:CGHC:10495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 353 of 2024 1 - Santosh Kumar Lohia S/o Late Shri Ramgopal Lohia Aged About 67 Years Resident Of Kampti Line, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Amit Lohia S/o Santosh Kumar Lohia Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Kampti Line, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgoan (C.G.), ... Petitioner(s) /(Plaintiffs) versus 1 - M/s Sky Infrastructures S.B. Complex Manav Mandir Square, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Dheeraj Kannuje S/o Shri Prakash Kannuje Killapara, D.M.V. College Road, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Partnership - M/s Sky Infrastructures S.B. Complex, Manav Mandir Square, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)/(Defendants) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04. 03.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Case No. 12-A/2022, whereby the learned Court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 and Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 Order 18 Rule 3 of CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a Civil Suit for the specific performance of contract and injunction against the defendants/respondents. He would further submit that an agreement was executed on 28.8.2021 and Rs. 1,55,00,000/- was paid to the defendants by the petitioners as advance amount. He would also submit that the applications under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC to ascertain the exact area of the land and under Order 18 Rule 3 of CPC to produce evidence were filed by the petitioners. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.02.2024 rejected the applications and against the said order, the instant petition has been filed. He would contend that in the agreement to sell dated 28.8.2021 the land is mentioned whereas physically such area is not available; therefore the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that a Civil Suit was filed by the petitioners for the specific performance of contract and there was no need to conduct a demarcation or to produce any evidence, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the applications moved by the petitioners. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the applications under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC & Order 18 Rule 3 of CPC were moved by the petitioners for demarcation of land and to direct the respondents/defendants to produce evidence prior to the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.02.2024 rejected the aforesaid applications. 3 6. Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC deals with Commissions to make local investigations and the same is reproduced here-in-below:- “Order XXVI, Rule 9. Commissions to make local investigations.-- In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.” 7. Order 18 Rule 3 of CPC deals with the right to produce evidence in multiple issues and the same is reproduced here-in-below:- “Order XVIII, Rule 3. Evidence where several issues.—Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.” 8. A bare reading of these provisions would make it clear that if, in any suit, the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, it may issue a commission. In the present case, the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for the specific performance of the contract; therefore, the plaintiffs should first produce evidence in support of their case. Further, the plaintiffs have not raised any dispute with regard to boundary, identification of land, market value of property or mesne profit in their plaint therefore the learned Trial 4 Court rightly rejected the application moved under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. Also, it would not be proper to direct the defendants to produce evidence prior to the plaintiffs. 9. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi