1 CGHC010227382026 2026:CGHC:30112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 741 of 2026 1 - Lalmohan Son Of Sankar Lal, Aged About 32 Years (Now (Defendent) 37) Caste - Aghariya, Village - Parsapali, Tehsil - Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Raghunath Fathers Name Late Balram, Aged About 62 Years Caste Aghariya, Resident Of Village Parsapali, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh, 2 - Peelababu, Father's Name Late Balram, Aged About 52 Years Caste Aghariya, Resident Of Village Parsapali, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh, 3 - Shankarlal, Father's Name Late Balram, Aged About 60 Years Caste Aghariya, Resident Of Village Parsapali, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh, 4 - Shrimati Savitri Bai, Father's Name Late Balram, Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village Parsapali, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh, 2 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ramakant Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Richa Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 15/07/2026 Counsel for the petitioner submits that since he has already filed certified copy obtained from the concerned court in which the details of the parties have been shown and similarly they have made them as a party in the present writ petition as per their status in the plaint, the default No.1 may be waived. 2. On due consideration upon the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, the default No.1 pointed out by the Registry is hereby waived. 3. So far as the default No.2 & 3 is concerned, he submits that these two defaults have been cured. 4. Heard. 5. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bilaigarh in Civil Suit No. 5- 3 A/2019, whereby the application preferred by the plaintiffs seeking their re-examination for the limited purpose of marking as exhibits the documents already taken on record vide order dated 03.05.2025 has been allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaigarh and the order dated 23.08.2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Bilaigarh are not binding upon them. It is further prayed that the sale deed dated 19.11.2009 be declared forged and fabricated, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs, and that the suit property situated at Village Farsapali, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar be partitioned by metes and bounds by granting separate possession to the plaintiffs. 7. It is further submitted that after the closure of the plaintiffs' evidence, an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.05.2025, permitting certain documents to be taken on record. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred another application seeking their re- examination solely for the purpose of formally exhibiting the said documents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said application has been filed at a belated stage only with a view to filling up the lacunae in the plaintiffs' case after the conclusion of their evidence. It is argued that permitting such re-examination would, in 4 effect, reopen the entire case and afford the plaintiffs an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in their evidence. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application preferred by the plaintiffs be rejected. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material available on record. 10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court has permitted the plaintiffs to be re-examined only for the limited purpose of marking as exhibits the documents which had already been taken on record vide order dated 03.05.2025. Although the plaintiffs' evidence has already been concluded, the learned trial Court has recorded a finding that, owing to inadvertence, the documents could not be formally exhibited during the course of evidence. The existence and availability of the said documents on record are not in dispute, and the omission appears to be a bona fide procedural lapse confined only to their formal exhibition. 11. It further transpires that the defendants' evidence has not yet commenced, and the said factual position has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality, jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court permitting the re-examination of the plaintiffs for the limited purpose of marking as exhibits the documents already on record. 5 12. However, it is made clear that the learned trial Court shall strictly confine the scope of the re-examination and the consequential re-cross- examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses only to the formal exhibition of the documents already taken on record. The defendants shall not be permitted to re-open the entire cross-examination or enlarge the scope of the proceedings beyond the aforesaid limited purpose. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.15 19:23:22 +0530