1 2025:CGHC:23301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2581 of 2025 1 - Shashi Devi Vaishnav Widow Of Late Raghavendra Das Vaishnav Aged About 72 Years R/o Vivekanand Ward, Balani Chowk, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Kamlesh Vaishnav S/o Late Raghavendra Das Vaishnav Aged About 47 Years R/o Vivekanand Ward, Balani Chowk, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Om Prakash S/o Late Raghavendra Das Vaishnav Aged About 44 Years R/o Vivekanand Ward, Balani Chowk, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Nazul Officer Mungeli, Office At Collectorate, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Manoj Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Shiv Kumar Vaishnav Aged About 52 Years R/o Sachipuram, Behind Sng College, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - Madhusudan Vaishnav S/o Late Shiv Kumar Vaishnav Aged About 58 Years R/o Sachipuram, Behind Sng College, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 12/06/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the Nazul Officer, Mungeli to take the documents submitted by the petitioners on record in revenue case No. 202103250800007/A-6/2020-21. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that Late Ramkrishna Das during his life time, has executed a Kutumbik Vyavastha Patra (Family Settlement deed) on 12.11.1957 by which he had given certain properties to his major son Shiv Kumar, situated at Village Khaira (Tulsi) and Panwarjalli and the rest of the property was given to other three minor sons namely Rajendra Kumar, Raghvendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar. It is submitted that pursuant to the family settlement, late Shiv Kumar, who was only major son got his name entered into the revenue records and remained in possession of the property given to him as per the deed. During his 3 lifetime late Shri Shiv Kumar Das sold certain properties inherited from his father Late Ramkrishna Das. It is further necessary to mention that the three other brothers of Shiv Kumar namely Rajendra Das, Raghvendra Das and Surendra Das did not take any steps to get their names mutated in the revenue records hence the property is still in name of Late Shri Ramkrishna Das. It is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Court the family settlement deed was taken on record. It is submitted that in the meantime the petitioners were able to lay hand on certain important documents such as the sale deed dated 07.04.1972 executed by the father of the private respondents and some other revenue documents wherein the name of the descendant of Shiv Kumar Das and Late Ramkrishna Das have been separately entered. In order to bring those documents on record an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC was moved by the petitioners which was rejected by the order dated 17.04.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below has passed the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 (annexure P/1) without considering the fact that the documents submitted by the petitioners are very much necessary for proper adjudication of the case. She further contended that learned Nazul Officer, Mungeli lost sight of the fact that the petitioners defense is entirely based on the Family Settlement Deed executed on 1957. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioners have an alternate remedy, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the 4 record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of record shows that the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 by which the application moved by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) of CPC for taking certain important document on record has been rejected stating that the documents presented by the parties related to division, the need of which does not seem appropriate in resolving the case. 8. It is crystal clear that there is dispute by and between the petitioners and the private respondents regarding share of the property, and it is well settled law that the dispute regarding property has to be determined by the Civil Court. Therefore, this Court finds no good ground to entertain this petition. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima