1 2025:CGHC:32380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1004 of 2024  Tulsi Ram Sahu S/o Shri Dhanesh Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Caste Teli R/o Village Parsuli Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Gopi Ram Sahu S/o Shri Prem Singh Sahu Aged About 62 Years Caste Teli R/o Village Parsuli Tahsil And District - Dhamtari (C.G.) (Defendant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/plaintiff : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent/defendant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 04.10.2025 (Ann P-1), passed by the learned learned Third Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Grade), Dhamtari (C.G.) in C.S. No. 20-A/2022 by allowing the application U/o. 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C., in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon’ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.14 14:24:02 +0530 2 instituted a suit for declaration of easement right of way and permanent injunction with regard to the suit land described in the plaint. He would further submit that the petitioner has no alternative path to approach his agricultural field bearing survey No. 408 admeasuring 0.15 hectare as the respondent/defendant has encroached over it and raised a construction over abadi land bearing survey No. 638. He would also submit that the learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that earlier a spot inspection was conducted by the revenue authorities pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar and no such encroachment was found. He would contend that as there was a dispute with regard to path, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent/defendant would oppose. He would submit that the spot inspection report pertaining to the suit property was conducted pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar, the matter traveled up to Additional Commissioner, Raipur and the orders were passed against the petitioner. He would further submit that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur dated 20.12.2021 has attained finality. He would also submit that the petitioner has three alternative paths to approach his agricultural field, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Perusal of the order impugned would show that the application moved by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was rejected on the ground that earlier, the spot inspection was conducted pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar and the matter traveled up to the Additional 3 Commissioner, Raipur. The Additional Commissioner, Raipur affirmed the spot inspection report of Tahsildar and that order has not been challenged by the petitioner and it attained finality. It also reflects that the petitioner has filed a suit claiming easementary right of way, whereas, it is stated by Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate, that there are three alternative paths available to the petitioner to approach his agricultural field. 6. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the contention made by Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. 7. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant