-1- 2025:CGHC:20325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 13 of 2022 1 - Chameli Bai D/o Late Dhankram Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Latuwa, Tehsil- Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgath. 2 - Godawari D/o Narayan Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Latuwa, Tehsil - Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Liladhar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Latuwa, Tehsil - Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dulaurin D/o Late Dhankram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Latuwa, Tehsil - Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dulari D/o Late Dhankram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village- Latuwa, Tehsil - Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gayatri D/o Late Dhankram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Latuwa, Tehsil - Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Leelabai D/o Late Dhankram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Latuwa, Tehsil - Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Devendra S/o Late Dhankram Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Latuwa, Tehsil - Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 7 - Tehsildar Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 8 - Sub Divisional Office Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.05.2025 1) The petitioners have assailed the order passed by the learned Ist Civil Judge Class-I, Baloda Bazar, whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected. 2) The facts of the present case are that a civil suit was filed by respondents No.1 to 6/plaintiffs for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and deletion of the names of the defendants from the revenue records. Civil Suit No. 109A/2013 was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2014. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar in Civil Appeal No. H 76A/2014, vide judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015. The plaintiffs preferred Second Appeal No.54/2016, which is pending consideration before this High Court. During the pendency of the second appeal, the plaintiffs moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC before the learned Ist Civil Judge Class-I, Baloda Bazar, seeking a direction to delete the names of the plaintiffs from the revenue records. The said application was rejected. The learned Court below observed that since no proceeding is pending before it, the application moved under Section 151 of the CPC is not maintainable. 3) Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued -3- that as the decree was passed in favour of the petitioners and it was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Baloda Bazar ought to have allowed the application moved under Section 151 of the CPC.; thus, he prays that the impugned order may be set aside. 4) On the other hand, Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that since no proceeding was pending before the learned Civil Judge, the application under Section 151 of the CPC was not maintainable at all. Thus, the learned Court below rightly rejected the same. She would further submit that the petitioner should have moved an application in the pending second appeal; hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file. 6) In the present case, the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 6 filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and possession before the learned Trial Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2014. The second appeal is pending before this Court. During the pendency of the second appeal, the petitioners moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC before the learned Ist Civil Judge Class-I, Baloda Bazar for deletion of the names of the plaintiffs from the revenue records, which has been rejected. 7) From a perusal of the documents, it is evident that no proceeding was pending before the Civil Judge when the application under Section 151 of the CPC was moved. An application under Section 151 of the CPC alone is not maintainable -4- and can be entertained only in a pending proceeding. 8) In the opinion of this Court, the learned Ist Civil Judge Class-I, Baloda Bazar has not committed any error of law while rejecting the application. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim