2026:CGHC:26164 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 706 of 2026 Smt Manjula Goti, D/o Devnarayan Goti Aged About 40 Years Caste - Gond, R/o Beside National Highway Charama, Distt North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dayaram S/o Jhitu Ram Sonkar Aged About 77 Years 2 - Mohan Lal S/o Jhitu Ram Sonkar Aged About 71 Years 3 - Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Late Aanand, D/o Jhitu Ram Sonkar Aged About 35 Years 4 - Tulsi D/o Bharat Sonkar Aged About 45 Years 5 - Smt. Rajani Bai D/o Bharat Sonkar Aged About 40 Years 6 - Chotu S/o Bharat Sonkar Aged About 35 Years All R/o Old Nakapara, Charama Tehsil And P.S. - Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh (Defendant No. 2) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Sidhant Tiwari, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25.06.2026 1. Heard. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.06.30 13:42:40 +0530 Wp227 706 of 2026 2 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Judge of Civil Judge Junior Division, North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit for Civil Judge No.27 of 2021 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 05 read with 151 of the CPC has been rejected. Petitioner has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ do issue calling all the relevant records of the case pertaining to the petitioner from the court below for perusal of this Hon’ble Court, if this Hon’ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the impugned order dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure P6), being illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law and consequent thereto allow the application filed under U/o 14 R 05 of the CPC by the petitioners and direct the learned trial Court to frame the issues as suggested in the application. 10.3 Cost of proceedings. 10.4 Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is defendant-1 before the learned trial Court, where respondents-1 to 6 are prosecuting a suit for possession and permanent injunction over the suit property of the land khasra No.1080/1 area 0.01 hectare, situated at village-Charama, District- North Bastar, Kanker. In the suit, the plaintiff Wp227 706 of 2026 3 pleaded that the suit land has been encroached by defendant-1 by raising boundary wall. When they were asked to vacate the suit land, they raised dispute. Plaintiffs approached Revenue authorities but their claim has been rejected and then, they filed Civil Suit. Defendant-1 filed her written statement and raised objection regarding the limitation to file the suit and pleaded that defendant-1 is residing over the suit property since more than 30-35 years and having peaceful possession over the suit land. He would further submit that in the written statement, they have specifically pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, as the same has been filed after 39-40 years of its purchase. Yet, no issues have been framed by the learned trial Court regarding limitation. Defendant-1 has filed an application for framing of the additional issue with respect to limitation to file the suit but the said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order, holding that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and from the document annexed with the plaint, it transpires that the plaintiffs have filed the suit within 12 years of accruing the cause of action. Therefore, the issue of limitation to file the suit is not necessary to be framed. He would further submit that when the trial Court itself considered that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, they should have framed the issue and decide the same only after recording evidence of the parties, but from the order impugned, it transpires that without framing issue and without recording evidence of the parties, learned trial Court has concluded that the suit is within Wp227 706 of 2026 4 limitation and the same has been filed within 12 years of accruing the cause of action. Therefore, impugned order may be set aside and the trial Court may be directed to frame issue with respect to limitation, as proposed by defendant-1. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. From perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-1) and the written statement filed by the defendant-1 (Annexure P-2), it transpires that the plaintiff has filed the suit for possession and permanent injunction. In the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that defendant-1 started construction since 22.07.2021 and then the suit has been filed. From perusal of written statement filed by defendant-1, it further transpires that the defendant has specifically pleaded in her written statement that she is in possession over the suit land since more than 30-35 years and the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence, suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The relevant pleading made by the defendant-1 in the written statement is necessary to be noticed here, which is as under: “ विकल्प में यह कथन ह, किक तहसीलदार मेंहदाय चारमें द्वार, दा क्रं.-02 क आदान क, कविथत दा- भूविमें पर, 30.35 र्षों सी भू, अवि!क सीमेंय सी, अनकिदाक ( प्रवितदा क्रं.-02) क लगातर कब्जा चाल आ रह ह, दा-भूविमें प्रवितदा क्रं.- 02 (अनकिदाक) क प&जा' क कब्जा क( भूविमें रह ह, विनष्कर्षिर्षोंत करत हुय तथ भू.र.सी. क( !र 250 आकर्षिर्षोंत नह, हत ह, लख कर, विवि!त, खरिरजा किकय गाय ह। Wp227 706 of 2026 5 (B) दा- पत्र क( कवि1क क्रं. (03) में उल्लविखत,  कथन, जा अस्कर ह4, विनम्न ह6- (I) कविथत दा- भूविमें क रवि7य रजामेंगा& सी सीलग्न हन क कथन (II) उक्त भूविमें, खल पडी थ, किकन्त< खल हन सी प्रवितदा न अस्थई घेर लगाकर कब्जा कर विलय जान क कथन (III) दा क स्त् क( भूविमें पर, प्रवितदा क्रं. (1) क अ! कब्जा पय जान क कथन, स्पष्ट रूप सी अस्कर ह। विकल्प में कथन ह किक रवि7य रजामेंगा& सी, प्रवितदा क्रं.-01 क( भूविमें लगा ह, तथ कविथत दा भूविमें पर, प्रवितदा क्रं. (1) 39-40 र्षों सी, प&जा कल सी, लगातर कविBजा ह, सीथ ह, प्रवितदा क्रं. (1) द्वार, दागाण क( भूविमें पर, अ! कब्जा कभू भू नह किकय गाय ह। 4. यह किक दा- पत्र क( कवि1क क्रं . (04), असीत्य ए भ्रामेंक दास्तजा' क आ!र' पर हन सी, तथ प्रस्त<त दा, स्पष्ट रूपण, कलसीमें Bवि!त हन क करण, अस्कर ह। विकल्प में यह कथन ह, किक दागाण द्वार, र्षों& 1982 में हु रविजास्ट्री क दारतजा पश किकय गाय ह, जा स्यHमें यह प्रमेंविणत करत ह, किक उक्त दा, 39- र्षों Bदा, पश किकय गाय ह।" 6. Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC provides that a case may be disposed off on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. Clause (b) of sub-rule (2), Order 14 provides that an issue may be tried first, if that issue relates to a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. 7. In the present case, the defendant-1 raised an objection regarding bar of the suit that it is barred by limitation under the limitation provided Wp227 706 of 2026 6 under Limitation Act 1963. Order 14 Rule 3 of the CPC provides the material from which the issues may be framed, which reads as under: 3. Materials from which issues may be framed.—The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials:— (a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties; (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit; (c) the contents of documents produced by either party. 8. From perusal of Order 14 Rule 2 and 3 of the CPC, it clearly demonstrates that the objection raised by the defendant-1 in the written statement by way of pleading an answer, the Court may frame the issue which is very relevant as provided under Rule 2 sub-rule 2 Clause(b) of the CPC. 9. From perusal of the application filed by the defendant-1 he proposes the issue with respect to limitation that “ क्य दा क दा कलसीमें ” अवि!विनयमें क अ!न Bवि!त ह । Since the defendant-1 has specifically raised pleading in the written statement regarding maintainability of the suit filed on the ground of limitation, the issue proposed by defendant-1 is an issue which is required to be framed for its trial either as preliminary issue, or the issue to be decided along with other issues, as the case may be. But the proposed issue is necessarily require to be framed for its determination. Wp227 706 of 2026 7 10. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the learned trial court is directed to frame the “additional issue - “ ” क्य दा क दा कलसीमें अवि!विनयमें क अ!न Bवि!त ह । and to decide the same after providing opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma