-1- 2025:CGHC:43569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 677 of 2025 1 - Jamuna Devi W/o Late Vimal Chandra, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Khamariya P.S. Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli, C.G. 2 - Jyotsana Jaatwar, D/o Late Vimal Chandra Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khamariya P.S. Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli, C.G. 3 - Ashutosh Kumar Jaatwar, S/o Late Vimal Chandra Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Khamariya P.S. Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli, C.G. 4 - Avinash Kumar Jaatwar, S/o Late Vimal Chandra Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Khamariya P.S. Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Biramdas (Dead) Through Lrs R/o Village Khapariya, P.S. Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli C.G. 1.1 - Jeevan Jaatwar S/o Late Biramdas Jaatwar, R/o Village Khapariya, P.S. Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli C.G. 1.3 - Dinesh Jaatwar, S/o Late Biramdas Jaatwar, R/o Village Khapariya, P.S. Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli C.G. 1.5 - Janki Devi, D/o Late Biramdas Jaatwar, R/o Village Khapariya, P.S. Jarhagaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli C.G. 2 - Bhawna Ratre W/o Raju Ratre, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ameri, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 3 - Kunti Ghritlahre W/o Piratram, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jhulna, Tahsil And District Mungeli C.G. 4 - Kalpana W/o Sattu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bhatri, P.S. And Tahsil Thakhatpur, District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Nilam Pahadi, W/o Rajkumar Pahadi, Aged About 25 Years R/o Behind Rama Magneto Mall, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.08.2025 1) The petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 20.06.2025 passed in Civil Suit No.64A/2015 by the learned IInd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mungeli, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed a suit seeking the declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property bearing Survey Nos. 235/2 and 237/2, admeasuring 0.08 acres and 0.22 acres respectively, situated at village Khamhari, Patwari Halka No.26, Tehsil and District Mungeli. The defendants filed their written statement. The learned trial Court framed issues, and vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.2022, dismissed the civil suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit property is the ancestral property. -3- 3) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred Civil Appeal No.20A/2022 along with two applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The first application was supported by the revenue records of the years 2021–22 and 2022–23 showing the suit property recorded in the name of one Biram Singh. In the second application dated 13.06.2023, the petitioners relied upon the Jamabandi of the years 1927–28 to demonstrate that the property was recorded in the name of one Man Singh. 4) The learned appellate Court, vide order dated 26.07.2023, allowed both applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and remanded back the matter to the Trial Court for adjudication of the matter afresh on merits, after taking into consideration the documents produced by the plaintiffs and affording the opportunity to both sides. 5) Pursuant to that, the learned Trial Court on 08.08.2023 granted liberty to the plaintiffs to adduce their evidence and posted the matter for 08.09.2023. On 08.09.2023, the case was again adjourned for 13.10.2023 for evidence. However, on the said date, the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence. Subsequently, on 28.11.2023, they moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed on 11.06.2024. Thereafter, on 27.06.2024, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was filed, which was allowed on 16.08.2024. Again, on 23.09.2024, the plaintiffs moved another application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to implead legal representatives of defendant No. 4, which was allowed on the same day. -4- 6) During the course of proceedings, the plaintiffs moved an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to examine one Jeevan Jatwar, the elder brother of the plaintiff’s husband, as a new witness. The learned trial Court rejected the said prayer holding that the matter was remitted by the appellate Court with a direction to parties to lead evidence with respect to the documents produced along with the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It further held that the true copy of the Jamabandi of 1927–28 has already been produced; therefore, permission to examine an additional witness is not warranted. However, liberty has been granted to the plaintiffs to exhibit the said documents by examining any of the cited witnesses. 7) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the appellate Court, while remitting the matter, had directed the learned Trial Court to afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties and in order to prove the contents of the documents, the examination of Jeevan Jatwar is necessary. It was submitted that the learned trial Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record. 9) The learned Appellate Court, in paragraph 15 of its order dated 26.07.2023, specifically directed the learned Trial Court to provide sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in relation to the documents produced under -5- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. 10)It is evident from the record that the plaintiffs’ witnesses have already been examined before the learned Trial Court in the earlier round, and the suit was dismissed. The learned Appellate Court, while remitting the matter back to the learned Trial Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties in the context of the documents produced by the plaintiffs, but liberty has not been granted to examine new witnesses. 11)The order passed by the learned appellate Court while remitting the matter was not challenged and, therefore, it attained finality. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the plaintiffs are at liberty to exhibit the documents by examining any of the cited witnesses. 12)In view of the above, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim