-1- 2025:CGHC:1711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 888 of 2019 Babulal S/o Late Chaitu Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Marka, Police Station- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner/Defendant No.1 versus 1 - Sitaram Yadav S/o. Late Chaitu Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Marka, Police Station- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Plaintiff 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. Defendant No.2 --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.01.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case Misc. Civil Suit No. 02/2018 and Civil Suit No. 64 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- A/2016, pending before the learned First Civil Judge Class-1, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned First Civil Judge Class-1, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Civil Suit No.02/2018, whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC has been allowed though it was not maintainable. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition and possession. He would further submit that the plaintiff moved an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC and the same was rejected and the civil suit was also dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2018. He would contend that the plaintiff moved another application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC and the same was allowed vide order dated 28.08.2019. He would also contend that the plaintiff could not adduce the evidence when the case was set for evidence, therefore, the suit was dismissed. He would also submit that the learned trial Court committed an error of law while allowing the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC. -3- 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Srivastava and support the order impugned. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that the civil suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was dismissed on technical grounds, therefore, the learned trial Court allowed the application moved under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC, thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned I st Civil Judge Class-1, Kabirdham (Kawardha). The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 6) No order as to cost(s). 7) Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim