1 2026:CGHC:24152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 613 of 2026 K.F. Johnson S/o Late P.D. Francis Aged About 50 Years R/o 7/a Street, No. 14, Sector- 10 Bhilai Nagar, P.S. Kotwali, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Yogesh Pandey S/o Shri D.N. Pandey Aged About 32 Years R/o Chandra Nagar, Behind Puri I.T.I. Kohaka Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - G.D.R. Educational Society Through Its Chairman Saurabh Rungta S/o Shri Santosh Rungta, Aged About 48 Years R/o G.E. Road Ganjpara, Durg Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order On Board 16.06.2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.18 10:58:02 +0530 2 07.04.2026 passed by learned 8th District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No.66-A/2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was defendant No.1 in the civil suit filed by the respondent No.1 before the trial Court. The respondent No.1 is prosecuting a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 03.02.2022 which was said to have been executed between the parties for sale of land Khasra No.1141/5 area 0.200 Hect. situated at village Kurud, District Durg. In the agreement, it was a condition that sale deed would be executed within one year from the date of its execution, however, when the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract, the defendant No.1 served a legal notice to the plaintiff and revoked/cancelled the agreement dated 03.02.2022 and thereafter, civil suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming specific performance of the contract. He would also submit that in paragraph 07 of the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted that a notice dated 07.03.2023 was served upon him sent by the defendant No.1, but merely by serving a notice, the agreement cannot be cancelled. However, the defendant No.1 is claiming that through the notice dated 07.03.2023, he terminated the contract between them and now the said agreement dated 03.02.2022 is not executable. 3. The trial Court framed issues based on the pleadings of the respective parties, however, the said issue with respect to service of notice dated 07.03.2023 by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff and its effect have not been framed for which he moved an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing additional issue in the case. He would also submit that 3 without framing any proper issue involved in the case, no effective adjudication would be possible in the suit. In view of respective pleadings of the parties, the issue proposed by the defendant No.1 as has been mentioned in his application dated 16.03.2026 filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC in paragraph 01 of the application may be framed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of copy of plaint annexed with the petition as Annexure P/2, it transpires that in paragraph 07 of plaint the plaintiff has pleaded about the service of notice by the defendant No.1 upon him on 07.03.2023 and it has also been pleaded that by the service of notice dated 07.03.2023, the agreement dated 03.02.2022 cannot be cancelled. The defendant No.1 in paragraph 5 & 8 of his written statement denied the plaint averment and pleaded about termination of the contract between them by the notice dated 07.03.2023. 6. When the plaintiff has pleaded the fact in his plaint and defendant denied based on the documents, and the said fact relates to executability of the agreement, it would definitely be a triable issue which goes to the root of the case as to whether the subject agreement was executable or not, and whether it has been cancelled or not as has been stated by the defendant No.1. 7. From perusal of issues framed in the case as also from the copy of said document annexed as Annexure P/4, it transpires that there is no issue framed by the trial Court with respect to the effect of notice dated 4 07.03.2023 allegedly sent by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that in view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the issue No.1-A proposed by the defendant No.1 in the application dated 16.03.2026 filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, should have been framed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to frame the issue proposed in paragraph 1-A of the application filed by defendant No.1, and to decide the suit in accordance with law after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead their respective evidence. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands partly allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sumit