1 2025:CGHC:24630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 593 of 2021  Vikash Kumar Goyal S/o Suresh Kumar Goyal, Aged About 32 Years R/o Jutmil Road, Kalindi Kunj Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Rohit Kumar Patel S/o Kripal Singh, Aged About 50 Years R/o Kosmanda, Police Station And Tahsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16. 06.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to call for the entire records of the civil suit no. A/84/2015 which is pending before the learned First Civil Judge Class-I Raigarh (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. A/84/2015 (Annexure-P/1) and further be pleased to allow the application under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of the Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.17 14:06:43 +0530 2 any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may please deem fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession over land encroached by defendant No. 1 after demolition. He would further submit that the defendant No. 1 contrary to sanctioned map raised construction, therefore, an application was moved to examine Municipal Officers and other Officers. He would contend that the learned trial Court rejected the application only on the ground that the plaintiff failed to submit relevant documents. He would further contend that the petitioner may be permitted to place relevant documents before the learned trial Court, and thereafter, he may be permitted to move appropriate application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. Agrawal, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff to place on record relevant documents, and thereafter, to move a fresh application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC. If such an application is moved, it is expected that the learned trial Court would decide it strictly in accordance with the law. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant