2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 584 of 2023 Smt. Bhanidevi W/o. Late Rajendra Yadav Aged About 59 Years R/o Infront Of Hindu Shamshan Ghat, Lakholi Naka, Ward No 30, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - Ramkumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Murlidhar Yadav, Aged About 57 Years R/o. Quarter No. 151/b Risali, Sector Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Shri Shobharam, S/o Late Murlidhar, Aged About 46 Years R/o Infront Of Hindu Shamshan Ghat, Lakholi Naka, Ward No 30, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o. Government Gundadhur Pg College, Kondagaon, Tehsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Abhishek Kumar Surang, S/o. Late Rekhchand Surana, Aged About 43 Years R/o Infront Of Hindu Shamshan Ghat, Lakholi Naka, Ward No 30, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o. Village Patewa, Tehsil And District Rajnandgoan Chhattisgarh. (That, Due To Inadvertence And Typographical Mistake At The Time Of Issuance Of The Order Sheets, The Subsequently Added Defendant No. 4 Has Not Been Shown As A Party, But The Impugned Order Shows That, The Defendant No. 4 Is Being Represented By The Counsel 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgah. Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Shashwat Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Adarash Patel, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 / State : Shri Sanjay Yadav, P.L.. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.20 14:39:04 +0530 -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 16/02/2026 1. Heard. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Additional Judge to the the Court of I Civil Judge Class-II, Rajnandgaon (for short “Civil Judge”) by which an application filed under order 14 rule 5 of the CPC by the petitioner/defendant for framing additional issue was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 / plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property which is described in Nazul Sheet No. 61 C Plot No. 3 area 2067 Sq. Meter in which 137.99 Sq. Meters (1484.77 Sq. Meters) situated in front of Graveyard, Lakholi Naka Chowk, Ward No. 29, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking a declaration that he is the lawful owner and in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has additionally prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating any third-party interest in the suit property. It is further submitted that an additional prayer was made seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 25.03.2021, executed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of Defendant No. 3 in respect of the suit property, is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. The written statement has been filed by the petitioner denying the averment of the plaint. It has been further pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation, the possession of the suit property is with the defendant, and in the absence of a claim for possession, a simplicitor suit declaration of title is not maintainable. It has also been contended that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. Further, the partition deed, to which Defendant No. 1 was not a party, is not binding upon him. Thus on the basis -3- of above pleadings, the written statement was filed. He further submits that the learned Civil Judge framed three issues. However, looking to the controversy involve in the Civil Suit and also looking to the pleadings of the written statement, averments of the plaint, the petitioner / dependent No.1 preferred an application under Order 14 Rule 2 and 5 CPC for framing the nine proposed additional issues. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge rejected the said application. Thus this writ petition is filed. He further submits that as the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation, the learned Civil Judge ought to have framed issues with regard to Limitation. He further submits that the petitioner has pleaded in his written statement that she is in possession of the suit property. Thus in absence of seeking relief of possession, the suit for simplicitor suit for declaration and injunction would not be maintainable, thus proposed issue which in this respect was also necessary to be framed. It is further stated that the suit was not properly valued in this regard issue was also required to be framed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner intends to move an application for framing of issues which would be required to be considered subsequently. Dispute is between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record appended with the documents. 6. The first contention of Shri Mishra, Advocate is that in the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that cause of action arose in the year - 2023 and thereafter in the year-2025 and it is continuing. The sale-deed was executed in the year- 2003, thus, the suit was apparently barred by limitation and learned Civil Judge committed an error in not framing the issue in this regard. A specific -4- pleading has been taken by the defendant No.1 with regard to suit been barred by limitation. The question of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law, however, in order to appreciate the same, the learned Civil Judge ought to have framed issue with regard to limitation as to whether the suit was within limitation or not. 7. Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC reads as under:- “Order 14 Rule 5. Power to amend and strike out issues:- (1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.” 8. If there is an affirmation of any fact in the pleadings by the plaintiff in the plaint and the same has been denied by the defendants, there would be an issue. 9. Thus, the first proposed issue by the defendant No.1 whether the suit was within limitation are required to be framed. The next question is that as to whether the suit was properly valued or not. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 was not a party to the sale deed, he is not required to value the suit as per valuation of the sale deed and proper valuation of the suit as well as Court fee was paid. Thus there is no necessity to framed this issue. However, the issue with regard to valuation has been raised, this Court deems it necessary that the issue with respect to Court fee require to be framed by the learned trial Court. Thus it is directed so. Now rest of the issues as to whether the suit was maintainable in absence of seeking a relief of possession. Plaintiff in his plaint has categorically pleaded that he is in possession and seeking injunction that possession should not be disturbed and third party right could -5- not be created. Though disputed by the petitioner/defendant, however at this stage, this Court is not impressed with submission that issue would not be necessary for adjudication of the case. Rest of the issue which has been proposed does not appears to have been necessary of deciding the issue which the learned Civil Court has framed, would decided the controversy between the parties, and thus barring the issue No.1 with regard to limitation and issue No.2 with regard to framing of valuation and court fee, this Court does not find any other issue necessary to be framed by the learned Civil Judge. Thus, this writ petition is partly allowed as indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish