-1- 2025:CGHC:8892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 266 of 2022 1 - Jay Singh, S/o Bhogilal Gavel, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Aadil, Tahsil- Malkharoda, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 2 – Ishwar, S/o Bhogilal Gavel, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Aadil, Tahsil- Malkharoda, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Prakash Kumar Gavel S/o Jay Singh Gavel Aged About 22 Years R/o Suloni, Occupation- Study, Tahsil- Malkharoda, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.02.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, in Civil Suit No. 23A/2017, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC has been rejected. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for the declaration of his share over the land bearing Survey No. 336/1, admeasuring 0.047 hectares, situated at Ward No. 11, Sakti. Defendants No.1&2 / petitioners filed their written statement, and in para-2, they pleaded that they have a younger sister, namely, Mamta, and a younger brother, Sagar, who are pursuing their studies and staying with the defendants. The plaintiff adduced evidence before the learned trial court. The case was set for the defendants’ evidence, and at that stage, an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC was moved, stating that the plaintiff had not impleaded his younger brother and sister as parties. The petitioners prayed for framing of an additional issue, as to whether the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiff filed a reply and denied the contents of the application. The learned trial court, vide order dated 24.03.2022, rejected the application on the ground that it was moved at a belated stage. It was also observed that the plaintiff had already pleaded the fact that Mamta is his younger sister and Sagar is his younger brother. 3. Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants No. 1 & 2, submitted that the plaintiff failed to implead his younger brother and sister, who are necessary parties, therefore, an application was moved under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC, and the learned trial court committed an error of law in rejecting the application. 4. On the other hand, the counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose -3- the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submit that the plaintiff denied the averments made in the application moved by defendants No. 1 & 2 under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC. They further submitted that the aforesaid fact was disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaint; therefore, they contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Order 14 Rule 1 of the CPC deals with the framing of issues. It states that issues arise when material facts and law are affirmed by one party and denied by the other. 7. In the present case, the plaintiff has nowhere pleaded that his younger brother and sister are not necessary parties. The defendants, in the last lines of para-2 of the written statement, stated that the plaintiff has a younger sister and brother who are staying with defendants No. 1 & 2. However, the defendants have nowhere pleaded that the brother and sister of the plaintiff are necessary parties or that the suit suffers from non-joinder of the parties. 8. Considering the pleadings made in the written statement and the provisions of Order 14 Rule 1 of the CPC, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 9. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM