1 2025:CGHC:61939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1358 of 2025 Ram Kumar S/o Sitaram Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Bandha Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner. versus 1 - Pardeshi Ram S/o Dukhuwa Ram, Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Bandha Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.). 1.(A) - Ayodhya Prasad S/o Pardeshi Ram, Aged About 42 Years. 1.(B) - Ramphal S/o Pardeshi Ram, Aged About 34 Years. Both R/o Village Bandha Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) 1.(C) - Partima Bai @ Pratima Bai Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Vicharpur Tehsil Lalpur, District Mungeli (C.G.). 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mungeli (C.G.) ... Defendants/Respondents. For Petitioner : Shri KPS Gandhi, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.2 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Govt. Advocate. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.12.19 16:53:29 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 19/12/2025 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No.7A/2019, by which applications of the petitioner/plaintiff filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code dated 12.09.2025, 17.09.2025, 14.10.2025 and 04.11.2025 were rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and to declare the order of Tehsildar, Lormi as null and void against the respondents/defendants. He further submits that the suit property is comprised in piece of Khasra No.26/2, 324/3, 488, 810, area 2.711, 0.142, 0.040, 0.065 hectare respectively situated at village Bandha, Tehsil Lormi, Patwari Halka No.53, RI Lormi, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli. He further submits that the said property was received by the petitioner/plaintiff from his father on partition and he is in possession of the suit property for 25 years. He further submits that the four applications under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC were filed along with certain documents which include revenue records and order passed by the SDM in a 3 proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC to demonstrate that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. He further submits that the documents also include Daan-patra (Gift deed) and those documents could not filed as the petitioner/plaintiff forgot to file those documents during pendency of the suit. He futher submits that the applications have been rejected illegally by the learned trial Court. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/Respondent No.2 submits that the dispute is between the petitioner/plaintiff and the other respondents/defendants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned trial Court has meticulously examined the applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff and relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Ashok Choudhari vs. Gwalior Diary Ltd and Others { 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1955 MP High Court}, observed that the civil suit is pending since 2019. Plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 01.10.2024 and the matter was listed for defendants’ evidence and on closing the defendants’ evidence on 28.8.2025, the suit was listed for final hearing. Thereafter, the applications were filed. The learned trial Court 4 also held that the only reason which has been assigned by the petitioner/plaintiff is that he forgot to file those documents on earlier occasions. It has also been observed that the petitioner could have filed those documents earlier. 6. Thus, from perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear that the learned trial Court has committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in rejecting these applications. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Avinash