1 2025:CGHC:23788 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2695 of 2025 1 - Shyam Prasad Gupta S/o Late Saryu Prasad Gupta Aged About 51 Years R/o - Post - Tehsil And District Aurangabad, Dharnidhar Road, Bihar. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma, Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Estate Officer (Samapada Adhikari) Kamal Vihar Yojna, Raipur Development Authority, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shiv Prasad Gupta S/o Late Saryu Prasad Gupta Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Shanti Nagar, Kheriyar Road, Post - Kheriyar Road, District - Nuvapada, Odisha. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) For State : : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13/06/2025 1. With the consent of the parties the present petition is heard finally. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief(s): “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased 2 to call for the records of the instant case. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions to the respondent no. 1 and 2 for taking immediate steps in light of the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the Respondent no. 2 and direct for the registration of sale deed in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law in the interest of justice. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/direction(s) in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner and respondent no. 1 are real brothers and the petitioner had instituted a civil suit for partition in the year 2010 which was registered as Partition Suit No. 182 of 2010 before the Sub Judge I, Aurangabad, whereby which the properties amongst the family members were divided by way of compromise and the property being Khasra No. 486 admeasuring 0.526 hectare situated at Raipur, C.G. is the suit property which was divided in 4 portions as per the compromise made between the parties. Thereafter, the property was mutated in the name of the petitioner and respondent no. 1 which was divided in 4 portions which was further acquired by respondent no. 3 2 for the purpose of development and in lieu of the property petitioner and the respondents were allotted specific properties in which the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 did not make any opposition. Thereafter, suddenly the respondent no. 1 with ill faced intention to grab the properties belonging to the petitioner has instituted the suit registered as 23A/2020 and titled as “Shiv Kumar Gupta vs Radhika Kuwar and others” for the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved of the suit the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 which was replied by the Respondent no. 1 denying the averments of the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908. He further submits that learned court below vide order dated 14.12.2022 after considering the submissions of both the parties have rejected the application filed by the petitioner merely on the basis that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 only plaint averments have to be seen and therefore, rejected the application. After being aggrieved by the order passed by the 6th Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur petitioner filed a revision petition before this Court being Civil Civil Revision No. 17 of 2023 in which this Court set aside the order dated 14.12.2022 and dismissed the Civil Suit No. 23- A/2020 filed by the Respondent no. 1. Despite the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by this Court, the respondent no. 1 and 2 have kept the property belonging to the petitioner in abeyance and not 4 getting it registered in the name of the petitioner and private respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2 contended that they are ready to decide the representation of the petitioner as per law and rules after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no. 3. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has filed a revision petition before this Court being Civil Revision No. 17 of 2023 in which this Court set aside the order dated 14.12.2022 and dismissed the Civil Suit No. 23-A/2020 filed by the Respondent no. 1. Despite the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by this Court, the respondent no. 1 and 2 have kept the property belonging to the petitioner in abeyance and not getting it registered in the name of the petitioner and private respondent. 8. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent no. 1 and 2 to decide the application dated 13.02.2024 presented by the petitioner within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed off. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima