1 2025:CGHC:10211 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 155 of 2025 1. Ram Kumar Gupta S/o Shivkailash Gupta Aged About 49 Years R/o Karpatri Park Ke Pass Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 2. Tikendra Kumar Sahu S/o Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kapa Tahsil Bodla District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Faguram Sahu S/o Jivrakhan Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o Naveen Bazar Marg, Vindhyavasini Ward Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03. 03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 02-A/2021 by the learned District Judge, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.), whereby, the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.04 10:35:35 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants/respondents. He would further submit that an agreement was executed on 06.12.2019 and Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid to the defendant No. 1 by the petitioners as an advance amount. He further submits that earlier an agreement was executed for purchase of 1 acre of land, but only 80 decimal land was available on spot. He would also submit that an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs for demarcation of the suit land on the ground that an agreement was executed for purchase of suit land and the learned Tahsildar, Kawardha has rejected the application for demarcation. The learned trial Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 rejected the application, against said order, the instant petition has been filed. It is contended that there is dispute with regard to exact area of the land, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application moved by the petitioners. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that a Civil Suit was filed by the petitioners for specific performance of contract and there was no need to conduct a demarcation, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application moved the petitioners. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. An application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was moved for demarcation of land by the petitioners on the ground that an agreement was executed for purchase of the land and the learned Tahsildar, Kawardha rejected the application for demarcation. The learmed trial Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 rejected the application moved under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. 3 6. The Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC deals with Commissions to make local investigations and same is reproduced here-in-below :- “Order XXVI, Rule 9. Commissions to make local investigations.-- In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.” 7. A bare reading of this provision would make it clear that if in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, may issue a commission. The learned trail Court rejected the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC on the ground that there is actually no boundary dispute in the Civil Suit filed by the petitioners. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for specific performance and there is no dispute with regard to boundary; therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant