1 2025:CGHC:9563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 53 of 2019 1 - Santosh Nishad S/o Kunwar Singh Nishad Aged About 37 Years R/o Patankar Colony,sindhi Colony Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Preeti Somal W/o Late Balveer Singh Somal Aged About 70 Years Permanant R/o K.C. Enclave Near, K.C. Pulic Scholl ,paloda ,district Jammu (Jammu Kashmir )present R/o C/o Dr. H.L.Arora,h.No. 11,st. No. 20,sector 10, Bhilai ,district Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhojraj Rathi S/o Late Jaynarayan Rathi Aged About 63 Years R/o Satti ,choura, Ganjpara ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Deffendent No. 2), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajkumar Rathi S/o Late Jayanarayan Rathi Aged About 53 Years R/o Satti ,choura, Ganjpara ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Deffendent No. 3), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kushal Rathi S/o Late Jaynarayan Rathi Aged About 43 Years R/o Satti ,choura, Ganjpara ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Deffendent No. 4), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Pushpa Jhanwar D/o Late Jaynarayan Rathi Aged About 51 Years R/o Satti ,choura, Ganjpara ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Deffendent No. 5), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh -2- 6 - Saroj Chandak D/o Late Jayanarayan Rathi Aged About 54 Years R/o Satti ,choura, Ganjpara ,tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Deffendent No. 6), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner/defendant No.1 : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Mr. Omprakash Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.02.2025 1. The petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 09.10.2018 and kindly allow the application preferred by the petitioner on 11.04.2018 and to direct the learned court below for appointment of the commissioner. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2. Ms. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 would submit that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction before the learned Trial Court along with a demarcation report. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 has encroached over some part of the suit property and the same is evident from the said report. Ms. Singhvi would further submit that an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC was moved by the petitioner for the appointment of the Local Commissioner for the identification of 3 boundaries of the suit property. She would contend that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application to elucidate the dispute between the parties. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Singhvi. He would submit that the demarcation was conducted by the revenue authorities and a report was placed before the learned Trial Court by the plaintiff. He would further submit that according to the demarcation report, defendant No.1 has encroached over the part of the suit property. He would contend that there was no occasion to order fresh demarcation or appointment of the Commissioner. He would further contend that the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. 4. From a perusal of the documents, it is apparent that there is a dispute with regard to boundaries or identification of the suit property. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with a demarcation report. The demarcation was conducted by the revenue authorities and according to the report, there is encroachment over a part of the suit property. The petitioner/defendant No.1 failed to challenge the demarcation report submitted by respondent No.1/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. Further, the petitioner/defendant No.1 may -4- approach the revenue authorities for the demarcation of his land. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties, the documents placed on record and the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha