1 2025:CGHC:26582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 538 of 2025 1 - Satveer Singh Gill S/o Late Sukhdev Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Shitla Para, Kondagaon District- Kondagaon, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mr. Tarsem Singh S/o Late Buta Singh Nilam Sharma Aged About 76 Years R/o Shitlapara Kondagaon District- Kondagaon (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Ranjit Kaur W/o Tarsem Singh Aged About 76 Years R/o Shitlapara Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Satindar Kaur W/o Late Sukhdev Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o Shitlapara Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Gagandeep Kaur W/o Manindar Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o V.P.O. Malakh, Jagraw, Ludhiyana, Punjab. 5 - Mr. Gurjindar Singh S/o Tarsem Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Shitla Para Kondagaon District- Kondagaon (C.G.) 6 - Mr. Tanveer Singh S/o Rajindar Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Shitla Para Kondagaon District- Kondagaon (C.G.) 7 - Mr. Shabir Singh S/o Gurjindar Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Shitla Para Kondagaon District- Kondagaon (C.G.) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.06.23 14:13:06 +0530 2 8 - Smt. Tarandeep Kaor W/o Gurjinder Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Shitla Para Kondagaon District- Kondagaon (C.G.) 9 - Smt Kamaljit Kaor W/o Baljindar Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Sbi Colony Dharampura Road Jagdalpur District- Bastar C.G. 10 - Mr. Harshveer Singh S/o Baljindar Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Shitla Para Kondagaon District- Kondagaon (C.G.) 11 - Mr. Ravindar Singh S/o Baljindar Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Shitla Para Kondagaon District- Kondagaon (C.G.) 12 - State Govt. C.G. Through Collector Kondagaon C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. T. K. Jha, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 12 : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 23/06/2025 1) Petitioner/ plaintiff has preferred this petition challenging the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) whereby application moved by the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10 and 11 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been partly allowed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court vide order dated 27.01.2025 directed the plaintiff to affix Court Fee of Rs. 200 – Rs. 200/- as the plaintiff has sought relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. He contends that an 3 observation has been made by the Trial Court to the effect that according to Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not sought relief with regard to possession. He argues that this observation made by the Trial Court is contrary to the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 1963. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Perusal of plaint would show that part of suit property is not in possession of petitioner/ plaintiff, therefore Trial Court has recorded such finding. In this regard, petitioner would be at liberty to move application for amendment seeking therein relief of possession. With regard to court fee, observation made by the Trial Court appears to be valid. 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, if the petitioner/ plaintiff moves application for amendment before the Trial Court, it is expected that same shall be decided by the Court strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya