NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1110 of 2025 Navin Goel S/o Late Shri R.C Goel Aged About 62 Years Proprietor Goel And Associates, Mch Hospital Building Contractor R/o C.G. House Board Office No. 302 Block A, Crystal Arcade, Shankar Nagar P.S. Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kavita Rajwade W/o Late Shyam Karan Rajwade Aged About 28 Years Caste- Rajwar, R/o Village- Baknakhurd, Tehsil- Dhourpur District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Bhavya Rajwade D/o Late Shyam Karan Rajwade Aged About 4 Years 1/2 Years, Minor Through Mother Kavita Rajwade, Caste- Rajwar, R/o Village- Baknakhurd, Tehsil- Dhourpur District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Shivam Rajwade S/o Late Shyam Karan Rajwade Aged About 2 Years 1/2 Years, Minor Through Mother Kavita Rajwade, Caste- Rajwar, R/o Village- Baknakhurd, Tehsil- Dhourpur District- Surguja (C.G.) (Plaintiffs) 4 - Chief Engineer Public Work Department, Road And House Construction, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - S.D.O. Public Work Department, Road And House Contruction, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Sub Engineer Public Work Department, Road And House Construction, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Joint Director Joint Superintendent Government Medical College, Cum Hospital Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surguja (C.G.) 9 - Executive Engineer C.G. Medical Services Corporation, Pachkedi Transport Nagar Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2 To 7) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For State/Respondents-4 to 9 : Shri Vikyat Arora, PL For Respondents-1, 2 and 3 : Ms Priyanka Mehta, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.04.20 15:31:56 +0530 Wp227 1110 of 2025 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16.04.2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 02.05.2025, passed by the learned First District Judge, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (CG) in Civil Suit No.06 B/2024, whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC filed by the petitioner for striking off his name from the array of cause-title of the Suit has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is defendant-1 in the Suit filed by respondents-1 to 3 before the learned trial Court. The suit is filed for compensation on account of death of Shyam Karan Rajwade, who fell in the duct which has been constructed for installing a lift at the Medical College Hospital building, Ambikapur. Deceased was husband of respondent-1 and father of respondents-2 and 3. He would further submit that petitioner is a contractor and was assigned the work only to construct the building with respect to only the Civil work, and he was not assigned the work of installation of lift over there. He has duly constructed the duct for installing the lift and handed over the building to the State Government on 28.03.2018, and obtained a certificate for taking over / handing over of the building. After about six months of handing over of the building to the State Government, the incident occurred in which husband of respondent-1 and father of respondents- 2 and 3 has died for which they are prosecuting the suit for compensation. He would further submit that petitioner is nowhere concerned and not liable for any Wp227 1110 of 2025 3 negligence, as it is for the State Government to install the lift on the duct through a competent agency. The petitioner has done his part of work, and obtained the work completion certificate and no liability could be fastened upon him with respect to the alleged incident, yet, he has been made as defendant-1 in the suit. Therefore, his name may be deleted from the cause-title of the suit but the learned trial Court has rejected his application on the ground that the matter requires evidence with respect to liability of the parties concerned. He would also submit that the documents clearly demonstrate that the petitioner completed the civil construction of the work and he is not liable to pay compensation to respondents-1, 2 and 3. Hence, the impugned order may be set aside and the plaintiffs may be directed to delete defendant-1 from the cause-title of the suit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents-1, 2 and 3 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that whether or not, the petitioner completed the civil work in accordance with the work order or what was his work to be completed under the work order are the disputed questions of facts, which could be decided only after leading evidence of the parties. At this stage, when the respondents-1, 2 and 3 are claiming compensation on the ground of negligence of the petitioner, he cannot be discharged by saying that he has no liability to pay the compensation as he has already handed over the building to the State Government. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and there is no merit in the present writ petition. Wp227 1110 of 2025 4 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents-4 to 9 also supported the impugned order, and would submit that the factual dispute cannot be considered while invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India, and it is only after leading evidence of the parties, the liability can be fixed by the learned trial Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a contractor, who was assigned the work to construct 100 Bed Medical College Hospital Building at Ambikapur. From the document annexed with the writ petition, it transpires that he handed over the building to the State Government on 28.03.2018 and obtained a certificate. From the documents annexed with the writ petition, petitioner could not demonstrate as to what work was awarded to him under the work order though he has filed the award dated 18.10.2013. Whether installation of lift on the duct was one of the part of the construction awarded to the defendant-1/petitioner or not, and what was the work allotted to him are the subject matter of evidence, which has to be proved by the parties concerned by leading evidence before the learned trial Court. The plaintiffs being the dominus litis of the suit, have raised allegation that by the negligent act of the defendants, the deceased- Shyam Karan Rajwade fell into the duct and has died for which, they imposed liability upon the defendants. The liability under the tort can only be fastened only after leading sufficient evidence by the parties concerned and at this stage, one cannot say that particular defendant has no liability to pay the compensation. The issue involved in the present writ petition can only be determined only after leading evidence by the parties and Wp227 1110 of 2025 5 rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC is found to be proper in accordance with law, and this Court finds no scope for interference in the present writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner fails and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma