1 2026:CGHC:6680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 60 of 2023 1 - Suresh Kumr Agrawal S/o Sant Lal Agrawal Aged About 69 Years (At That Relevant Time R/o Kotara Road, Vikas Nagar, Raigarh), Presently Residing At Friends Colony, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jamuna Devi Verma (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-09-2025 1.1 - Madan Mohan Verma S/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Presently Aged About 63 Years R/o Kotara Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 1.2 - Smt. Sarita Verma D/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Presently Aged About 60 Years R/o Kotara Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 1.3 - Pradeep Kumar Verma S/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Presently Aged About 58 Years R/o Kotara Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 1.4 - Raj Kumar Verma S/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Presently Aged About 56 Years R/o Kotara Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1(a) to 1(d) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shaswat Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Topilal Baraith, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge Class-I, Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, in Civil Suit No.A/21/2006, by the impugned order, application filed by defendant No.1/respondent No.1 under Order VIII Rule 1A of Code of Civil Procedure to bring on record certain documents i.e. application dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P/5) & application dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P/6) are allowed. 2. Facts of the case :- On 21.12.2006, the petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing old Khasra No.16/2 admeasuring 0.162 hectares situated at Village Baikunthpur, P.H. No.13, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.), asserting ownership and praying for restraint against the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession or from alienating or creating third-party rights by 3 projecting the suit land as part of Khasra No.16/1. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was allowed by the Trial Court on 18.08.2008, resulting in dismissal of the suit; however, the said order was set aside in First Appeal by the District Judge, Raigarh on 16.09.2009, holding the suit to be maintainable and remanding it for adjudication on merits. Thereafter, defendant No.1 filed a written statement and counter-claim on 06.11.2009, which led to further proceedings being stayed owing to a Miscellaneous Appeal, later withdrawn, followed by a Second Appeal that was ultimately dismissed on 14.06.2022, affirming the maintainability of the suit and directing expeditious trial. Upon resumption of trial in July 2022, defendant No.1 moved applications under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC on 26.09.2022 and 30.09.2022 to bring additional documents on record, including a compromise decree dated 14.07.2018 passed by the National Lok Adalat, which applications were opposed by the petitioner on the ground of absence of pleadings, lack of relevance, and non-compliance with statutory requirements; nevertheless, the Trial Court allowed the same by order dated 20.10.2022. Consequent thereto, the petitioner sought amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to meet the case set up by the newly introduced documents, which application was rejected on 17.11.2022, compelling the petitioner to challenge the said orders and invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the plaintiff, instituted a civil suit against the respondent– defendant seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are null and void, along with a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property as described in the plaint. The respondent–defendant filed a written statement and the suit was pending consideration before the learned Civil Judge. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent–defendant filed applications dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P/5) and 30.09.2022 (Annexure P/6) under Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which were allowed by the impugned order. By way of the said applications, the respondent sought to place on record a registered sale deed dated 10.04.1974, certain revenue records, and a compromise decree allegedly obtained in Lok Adalat on 14.07.2018. It is further submitted that the aforesaid documents could and ought to have been produced at an earlier stage of the proceedings and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge erred in allowing the applications and taking the said documents on record. Consequently, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Civil Judge, after due application of mind, has rightly held that the documents appended with the applications are necessary for proper adjudication of the civil suit on merits. It is further submitted 5 that a counter-claim has also been filed and there exists a substantive dispute with regard to the suit property. In such circumstances, the applications were rightly allowed. Learned counsel contends that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court ought not to interfere with the well-reasoned findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and peruse the documents available on record. 6. The contention raised by Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the applications under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC ought to have been filed along with the written statement. 7. On perusal of the documents, it is evident that although some of the documents could have been filed at the stage of filing of the written statement, certain documents pertain to the year 2018. The learned Civil Judge, after due consideration of the rival submissions advanced before the Trial Court, has recorded a categorical finding that the documents sought to be brought on record by way of the applications under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC are necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit on merits. 8. Upon appreciation of the arguments and on careful perusal of the impugned order as well as the documents annexed with the petition, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. In view of the foregoing, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 6 9. Let a copy of this order along with the original records, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance. CC as per rules. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Saxena