1 2026:CGHC:25235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 668 of 2026 Anil Sharma S/o Late Kishan Sharma Aged About 49 Years R/o Samta Colony House No. 382, Raipur, P.S. And Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Anju Sharma W/o Late Ramesh Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Behind Muktidham, P.S., Tahsil And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Nikita Sharma D/o Late Ramesh Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Behind Muktidham, P.S., Tahsil And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Satish Sharma S/o Late Kishan Sharma Aged About 54 Years R/o Samta Colony House No. 382, Raipur, P.S. And Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Sumitra D/o Late Kishan Sharma Aged About 69 Years R/o Samta Colony House No. 382, Raipur, P.S. And Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Vimla D/o Late Kishan Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o Samta Colony House No. 382, Raipur, P.S. And Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.22 11:22:26 +0530 2 6 - Smt. Chanda D/o Late Kishan Sharma Aged About 51 Years R/o Samta Colony House No. 382, Raipur, P.S. And Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Archana W/o Late Santosh Sharma Aged About 51 Years R/o Samta Colony House No. 382, Raipur, P.S. And Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - Ankit Sharma S/o Late Kishan Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o Samta Colony House No. 382, Raipur, P.S. And Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 9 - Atik Sharma S/o Late Kishan Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Samta Colony House No. 382, Raipur, P.S. And Tahsil Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Aasha Nirmalkar, Advocate For Respondent No.10 : Ms. Isha Jajodia, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 19/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 13.04.2026 3 passed by learned Ninth Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raipur in Civil Suit No. 365A/2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 5 Rule 11 of CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court where the present respondents No.1 and 2 are prosecuting a suit for declaration of title, mandatory injunction and for damages. In the suit, the other defendants No.2 to 8 are also there, who are the relative of the defendant No.1. In the suit, the notices were ordered to be issued by the learned trial Court to the defendants and in pursuance thereof, notice to the defendant No.1 has been served. He would further submit that at the time when the process server came to the defendant No.1 to serve the summons upon him, he also left the summons to the other defendants No.2 to 8 to the defendant No.1 and got his signature over various papers to show that the summons have been duly served upon the respective defendants. He would further submit that the defendants No.2 to 8 though the relative of defendant No.1, but all of them are residing at different places and as per the provisions of Order 5 Rule 11 of CPC, each of the defendants should have been served separately. Despite refusal of the defendant No.1 from accepting their summons, he was forced to sign the document by the process server and thereby, no proper service of summons have been effected upon the other defendants, which may affect their case before the learned trial Court in absence of their proper representation in the suit, he filed an application under Order 5 Rule 11 of CPC informing the learned trial 4 Court about discrepancies in service of summons but the learned trial Court has rejected the application holding that in the plaint, the addresses of the defendants are one and common. He would draw attention of this Court to the documents submitted by the petitioner with respect to the addresses shown in their documents and would pray for setting aside the impugned order and direction to the learned trial Court to personally serve the summons to the other defendants. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition and gone through the provisions of Order 5 Rule 11 of CPC. 5. From perusal of the copy of the plaint annexed at page No.10 of the petition, it transpires that the respondent No.1 and 2 have filed the civil suit showing the addresses of all the defendants are one and common i.e. “Samta Colony, House No. 382, Raipur, P.S., Tahsil and District Raipur”. The notices were issued to the defendants on the addresses given in the suit, though, the defendant No.1 raised an objection that all the other defendants are residing at different places, however, the fact remains that the summons were sent to the respective defendants for its service to the addresses given in the suit. Whether or not the service of summons was considered to be duly served upon the respective defendants are to be considered by the learned trial Court in view of the relevant provisions of Order 5 of CPC. The defendant No.1 has already raised an objection and their application under Order 5 Rule 11 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that in the plaint, the address of all the defendants are one and same and on the said address, the summons were sent and it was served 5 upon the defendant No.1. 6. Presently, the summons has appeared to be served upon the address given in the plaint and it is for the respective defendants to claim that they have not been served properly as they are not residing on the given address which is the question of fact requires to be considered by the learned trial Court at an appropriate stage, however, the petitioner cannot claim that the other defendants have not been served properly. It is not in dispute that the petitioner who is the defendant No.1 has not been served properly but the service upon the defendant No.1 has duly been effected. 7. After having considered the order passed by learned trial Court, I do not find any perversity or illegality in rejecting the application filed by the defendant No.1. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit