1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1289 of 2025 1 - Sanad Sahu S/o Late Taturam Sahu Aged About 69 Years R/o Near Dolly Kirana Stores, Chhattisgarh Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Umesh Sahu S/o Late Bhuwanlal Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Chaurasiya Colony, Near Kali Mandir, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prakash Sahu S/o Late Bhuwanlal Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Chaurasiya Colony, Near Kali Mandir, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Yogeshwari Sahu W/o Kishun Sahu Aged About 47 Years D/o Late Bhuwanlal Sahu, R/o Rawatpura Colony, Phase-Ii, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rameshwari Sahu W/o Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 45 Years D/o Late Bhuwanlal Sahu, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Digeshwari Sahu W/o Radhe Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Police Quarter, Chandrakhuri, Tehsil Mandir Hasod, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Purain Bai Wd/o Late Bhuwanlal Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o Chaurasia Colony, Near Kali Mandir, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Mahesh Sahu S/o Late Taturam Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. counsel with Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate For State / Respondent : Mr. T. L. Bareth, PL PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.12.09 17:22:15 +0530 2 No. 8 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 09/12/2025 Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the legality, validity and proprietary of the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the 3rd Additional Judge to 1st Civil Judge – Junior Division, Raipur, CG (for short Civil Judge) in Civil Suit No. 289-A/2023 by which learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and separate possession in respect to the suit property mentioned in the plaint. He submits that written statement has also been filed. At that point of time, an application under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was filed by the petitioner which was rejected by the impugned order. He submits that there may be wrong nomenclatures mentioned in the application rather it should have been treated as an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and the private respondents. 5. Be that as it may, perusal of record would indicate that the learned civil judge has also considered the all aspects of the matter prima facie on due appreciation rejected the application. Thus, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. However, if the petitioner seeks to avail the remedy under Order 39 3 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, he may do so before the learned Civil Judge. 6. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is dismissed. 7. All pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan