1 2026:CGHC:5724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 289 of 2022 1 - Ravishanker Gupta S/o Late Sundarlal Gupta Aged About 67 Years R/o 6b, Mandira Block, Merlin Jaishree Vihar, Mandi Road, Pandri Tarai, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shivshanker Gupta S/o Late Sundarlal Gupta Aged About 60 Years R/o 6b, Mandira Block, Merlin Jaishree Vihar, Mandi Road, Pandri Tarai, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Om Prakash Gupta S/o Late Surajpal Gupta Aged About 64 Years R/o Near Hajari Hotel Gandhi Chowk, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Durgaprsad Gupta (Kesarwani) S/o Late Surajpal Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o P 73, Liberty Colony, Village Samardha, Post Mandideep, Bhopal (M.P.) 3 - Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani S/o Late Surajpal Gupta Aged About 52 Years R/o Mahamaya Electrical Near Hajari Hotel, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) 4 - Vikash Kesarwani S/o Surajpal Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Deepshikha General Stores, Smriti Nagar Market Post Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Collector, Koriya (C.G.) 6 - Ajit Singh S/o Shivmurti Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Amakherva Road, Near Dr. Sinha House, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya Business Spot Jhagrakhand Road Infront Of Khan Narsingh Home, Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Other respondents : None. ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 02/02/2026 Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24/03/2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Manendragarh, District–Koriya, C.G. in civil suit No.52A/2019 whereby three different applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The first application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 2 CPC which was registered as I.A.No.1/2022 before the Civil Judge was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit property comprised in piece of khasra No.343/10 total area 0.479 hectare (1.185 acre) situated at Manendragarh, District-Koriya, C.G. Further prayer was also made that the mutation entry made in the revenue records in favour of the respondent is null, void and illegal. Injunction was also sought with regard to interference of the possession and restraining the respondent to sell the suit property. The written statement was also filed and witnesses of the plaintiff were also examined. An application under Order 16 Rule 2 CPC was filed with a prayer that one sale deed dated 22/03/1965 and family settlement dated 11/07/1969 were registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Manendragarh in order to prove that the Sub-Registrar of Manendragarh was required to be called as a witness. Apart from this, a will dated 23/12/1991 was also registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Raipur and in order to prove that, the Sub-Registrar, Raipur is required to be called through summons. Thus, the application was filed. The application was resisted by the respondents and vide the impugned order, the application was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law as the Sub-Registrar, Manendragarh and Sub-Registrar, Raipur are specifically mentioned in the list of witnesses submitted before the learned Civil Judge. Since these are Government officials, they are required to be summoned from the Court, thus, rejection of the application is bad in law. The rejection of the application is 3 only on the ground that the application was filed belatedly and as the case is an old one, it has to be decided expeditiously. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 supports the impugned order and submits that the will dated 23/12/1991 which the petitioner wanted to prove by calling the Sub-Registrar, Raipur, is required to be proved in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 63 (3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act of 1925’) read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act of 1872’). The will has to be proved by the attesting witnesses and from the application filed under Order 16 Rule 2 CPC, it does not appear that the attesting witnesses namely K.P.Jain and Ajay Kumar are not alive. Thus, there is no necessity to call the Sub-Registrar, Raipur as a witness. So far as calling the Sub-Registrar is concerned, submission of counsel for respondent No.6 is that there is no necessity to call this witness after a lapse of so many years and the reasons assigned by the trial Court appears to be just and proper and does not require interference by this Court. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the dispute is between the private parties. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. By the application under Order 16 Rule 2 CPC, the petitioner intends to examine Sub-Registrar, Manendragarh in order to prove one sale deed dated 22/03/1965 and family arrangement dated 11/07/1969 and according to the application, they are registered document registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Manendragarh. The name of the Sub-Registrar is also mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with the civil suit. Ofcourse, there are some delay in making the application but the fact remains that they may be necessary to prove the pleadings of the petitioner. Thus, the order, so far as it rejects the application of the petitioner with respect to calling the Sub-Registrar, Manendragarh, does not appear to be based on proper appreciation of facts. Thus, the same is set aside. The petitioner shall submit the cost/expenses for summoning the witnesses and thereafter, the summons would be issued by the learned Civil Judge to call the witnesses. 4 8. Now, the other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in order to prove the will, the Sub-Registrar, Raipur is required to be called. Will has been produced before this Court by way of covering memo. It seems that there are two attesting witnesses to the will. The law is well settled that if a will is required to be proved, that has to be proved in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 63 (3) of the Act of 1925 read with Section 68 of the Act of 1872. The name of these witnesses are not in the list of witnesses submitted by the petitioner. This Court does not find any necessity to call the Sub-Registrar in order to prove the will. Thus, the order of the Civil Judge with respect to denial of calling the Sub-Registrar, Raipur to prove the will is hereby maintained. 9. By the impugned order, learned Civil Judge also rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 3 CPC which was registered as I.A.No.2/2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the will dated 23/12/1991 was scribed by Advocate Shri M.Joshi @ Madhav Joshi, Raipur. Inadvertently, his name was not included in the list of witnesses submitted before the learned Civil Judge earlier. Thus, his name may be included in the list of witnesses. He further submits that the scriber of the will is necessary to be included as a witness in order to say that the testator was in good health condition and thus, he scribed the will. Inadvertently, the name of the advocate could not be mentioned in the list of witnesses but the same is prayed to be included in the list by moving the application. He further submits that rejection of the application is only on the ground of delay and no other reason has been assigned by the learned Civil Judge. Thus, the application may be allowed. 10. Opposing the above submission, learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that for inclusion of the name of scriber of the will is not necessary in the list of witnesses as well should be proved in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 63 (3) of the Act of 1925 read with Section 68 of the Act of 1872. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It is not in dispute that the name of the scriber of the will is not included in the list. The list was submitted in the year 2020 and the application is said to be filed in the year 2022. The submission of Shri Kotecha is that the petitioner 5 wanted to include the name of Advocate (scriber) of the will in order to know that the testator was in good mental and physical health condition at the time of execution of will, thus, the application ought to have been allowed. As stated in the previous paragraph of this order, the petitioner has all right to prove the will by complying the provisions contained in Section 63 (3) of the Act of 1925 read with Section 68 of the Act of 1872, at this stage, it does not appear that the learned Civil Judge has committed any irregularity or jurisdictional error while rejecting the application. Thus, this order of the learned Civil Judge is affirmed and the application is rejected. 13. The last application which has been decided by the same order is the application under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC to examine the witness advocate on a commission. As this Court has already rejected the application of the petitioner to include the name of advocate in the list of witnesses, thus, there is no necessity to examine him on commission. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed as indicated above. Any observation made in this writ petition is for the purposes of deciding the issue before this Court and it will not affect the merits of the case. Learned Civil Judge shall decide the case independently on the basis of material available on record. All pending applications are disposed off. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.02.02 17:21:45 +0530