1 2026:CGHC:26168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 682 of 2026 1 - Kamalkant S/o. Late Shri Ghanshyam Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Village - Kuthrail, Bastipara, Near Darri Pond, Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Kalibai W/o. Late Shri Ghanshyam Singh Chandrakar, Aged About 75 Years, R/o. Village - Kuthrail, Bastipara, Near Darri Pond, Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Ramakant S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. Ward No. 43, Behind Dr. D.P. Chandrakar Clinic, Mukt Nagar, Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2 - Kalyani Chandrakar, D/o. Late Shri Ghanshyam Chandrakar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village- Kuthrail, Bastipara, Near Darri Pond, Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4 - Additional Tahsildar, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25-06-2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 24-04-2026 by Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.07.04 18:26:39 +0530 2 which the civil suit filed by the petitioners is ordered to be registered only against defendants No.1 to 3, the order dated 19-05-2026 and 30-05-2026 in which certain remark has been observed by the learned trial Court against the counsel for the plaintiffs and also against the order dated 30-05-2026 for rejection of the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The petitioner prayed the following relief(s) in the writ petition:- “a. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by setting aside the order dated 24.04.2026, wherein, registration of case against Defendant No. 4 has been rejected, the adverse remarks against counsel for plaintiff in order-sheets dated 19.05.2026 and 30.05.2026 be held to be illegal, unwarranted and unnecessary be expunged. Likewise, rejection of application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 30.05.2026 be also set-aside since the application was rejected by Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Durg not-considering the fact that petitioners/plaintiffs are dominus-lities have every right to implead necessary parties in the suit, by allowing the petition. b. Cost of the petition be awarded and, c. Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, they are prosecuting a suit for declaration of their one fourth and one fourth share over the suit property and also for permanent injunction from interference of the defendants over their property. The plaintiffs have filed the suit on 16-04-2026 with the pleadings that Additional Tahsildar Durg demarcated the subject land and with collusion of the defendants No.1 and 2 initiated the proceeding for dispossession of 3 the plaintiffs from the subject land and despite their objection she not stopped the proceeding and thereafter, by making the Additional Tahsildar as a party defendant, the suit has been filed. Since the Additional Tahsildar has demarcated the land and despite objection she has not stopped the proceeding, she has been made as a party in the personal capacity and the suit has been filed, but the learned trial Court has not registered the suit against the Additional Tahsildar/defendant No.4 holding that the Additional Tahsildar is protected under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 and she cannot be arrayed in personal capacity in the suit particularly when she acted in official capacity. He would further submit that he has not challenged the order dated 19-05-2026 passed by the learned trial Court in the present writ petition by reserving the right of the petitioners to challenge it in appropriate proceeding. 3. He would further submit that when the civil suit has not been registered against defendant No.4 Kshama Yadu, Additional Tahsildar, the petitioners made application before the learned trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading her as party, defendant No.4 in the suit. The said application of the plaintiffs has also been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30-05-2026. The plaintiffs are dominus litis of their suit and it is for them to implead the parties as defendant against whom they sought relief in the suit. There is pleading against the proposed defendant No.4 that despite raising objection by the plaintiffs she has not stopped the proceeding of delivery of possession of the suit property and thus, she personally involved in the arbitrary act and therefore, she is a necessary party in the suit. For their personal act no benefit could be extended to the proposed defendant No.4 under the garb of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 and therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC for impleading the proposed defendant No.4 in the suit may be allowed. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. With respect to the order dated 19-05-2026, on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that he is not pressing the relief to the extent of order dated 19-05-2026 with liberty to challenge the validity of the same in appropriate proceeding, the order dated 19-05-2026 is not being examined by this Court. 6. So far as the order dated 24-04-2026 is concerned, while passing the order the learned trial Court registered the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs only against defendants No.1 to 3 who appears to be necessary parties. In the plaint (Annexure-P/1) the plaintiffs have arrayed the Additional Tahsildar by impleading the name of the presiding officer as “vfrfjDr Rkglhynkj {kek ;nq] nqxZ ¼N-x-½” and the pleadings made in para 8 of the plaint that Additional Tahsildar {kek ;nq had not stopped the proceeding of delivery of possession of the subject property despite raising objection by them. It further transpires from para 8 of the plaint that the defendant No.1 had moved an application before the Additional Tahsildar for possession of subject property and the Additional Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property which is a house and despite objection the Additional Tahsildar has not stopped its proceeding. From para 10 of the plaint it also transpires that the demarcation was conducted on 12-12-2025 and report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector before the proposed defendant No.4 and then the application was filed by the defendant No.1 before the Additional Tahsildar and the Additional Tahsildar issued notice to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, on 10- 04-2026 they raised objection there, but despite stopping the proceeding, they gave further date of 23-04-2026, then the civil suit has been filed on 16- 04-2026. 7. From the pleadings of the plaint it clearly reveals that Kshama Yadu was the presiding officer and posted as Additional Tahsildar at Durg. An application 5 was submitted before her for vacant possession of the subject property and after demarcation report she issued notices to the plaintiffs and then proceeded in the case, in such affairs it cannot be said that she arbitrarily acted on the application of the defendant No.1, but she acted in accordance with law after receiving an application for vacant possession by defendant No.1. 8. It is not a case where the plaintiffs have proposed to be arrayed as defendant No.4 Additional Tahsildar Durg, but they proposed the name of Kshama Yadu as Additional Tahsildar and considering the provisions of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 the learned trial Court registered the civil suit only against defendants No.1 to 3 who are private persons and State Govt. 9. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be against the Additional Tahsildar who acted under the official capacity after having received the application for vacant possession. There is absence of sufficient pleadings about arbitrariness or malafide intention against the proposed defendant No.4 so that it can be considered that she is a necessary party in the suit as sufficient pleadings regarding arbitrariness and malafidy have been pleaded against her. 10. True it is that the plaintiffs are dominus litis of their suit, but before making a party defendant in the suit the plaintiffs are required to plead sufficient averments particularly when the proposed defendant is a Government servant and the allegation against her is about arbitrary action and malafidy, which is lacking in the present suit. 11. Likewise, the petitioners filed their application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading defendant No.4 as “vfrfjDr Rkglhynkj] {kek ;nq] nqxZ ¼N-x-½”. It is alleged in the application that Kshama Yadu is personally interested in the proceeding and colluded with other defendants. However, there is no sufficient pleading in the plaint against her and on the same ground the registration of the suit against proposed defendant No.4 was declined by the 6 learned trial Court vide its order dated 24-04-2026 and while deciding the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC the learned trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiffs holding that the Additional Tahsildar Kshama Yadu had acted in her official capacity and the order with respect to proposed defendant No.4 has already been passed on 24-04-2026 and under the provisions of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 civil suit cannot be registered against her in her individual capacity and thereby rejected the application. 12. It is also to be noted that the plaintiffs have made State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Durg as a party defendant No.3. The Collector Durg who is representing the State in the suit is competent enough to defend the interest of the State including the action of Additional Tahsildar, Durg irrespective of the posting of the presiding officer either Kshama Yadu or any other presiding officer. 13. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the documents annexed with the petition as well as the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders dated 24-04-2026 and 30-05-2026 passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil