-1- 2025:CGHC:12874 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1021 of 2023 Shivdayal Sahu S/o Ruprai Aged About 55 Years Caste- Teli, R/o Village Khursula, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Mo. No. 9111800266 (Defendant No.5) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Kaushal S/o Sewak Ram Aged About 33 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Singhitar, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.1). 2 - Krishna Kumar S/o Sewak Ram Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Singhitar, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.2). 3 - Dhaniram Sahu S/o Chintaram Aged About 71 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Pavni, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 1). 4 - Dhansay S/o Chintaram Aged About 75 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Pavni, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 2). 5 - Dwarika S/o Anandram Aged About 54 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Pavni, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 3). 6 - Dinesh S/o Maniram Aged About 45 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Pavni, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 4). 7 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 6). ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.03.2025 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 entire records regarding present case from Courts below. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Class-II Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 15-A/2021, Parties "Kaushal & others Vs. Dhaniram Sahu & others" (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to allow this application under order 26 rule 9 and Order 8 Rule 1(a) (3) of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the learned Trial Court to allow the parties in proceeding of counter suit, is in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just, in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek permission of this Court to withdraw his prayer with regard to the rejection order of counter claim and the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC which was moved by the petitioner/defendant No.5 before the learned Court -3- below for appointment of Commissioner. 3. Permission granted. 4. Accordingly, the prayer made by Mr. Agrawal is hereby allowed and the challenge made in this petition so far as it relates to the rejection order of the counter claim & further rejection of application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC are hereby withdrawn. 5. The matter is heard for order on the application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of the CPC. 6. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.5 would submit that for taking document on record pertaining to Survey No. 1341/2, ad-measuring 0.068 hectares, an application under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) of the CPC was moved before the learned trial Court. He would contend that vide order dated 08.11.2023, the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) of the CPC on the ground that defendant No.5 failed to give proper reasons as to how the documents would support his case; thus, he would pray that the application under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) of the CPC may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Agrawal and submit that the demarcation of the land bearing survey No. 1341/2 admeasuring 0.068 hectare was conducted in the year 2016; thus, the learned trial Court rightly rejected both the applications. -4- 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2022], held that the relevance of the document can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself. 10. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case in the light of Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors (supra), the application moved under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the CPC is hereby allowed. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM