1 CGHC010248502026 2026:CGHC:29501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 827 of 2026 Jagdeep Singh Chhabra S/o Sardar Surendra Singh Chhabra, Aged About 56 Years Occupation Businessman, R/o Next To Mahamaya Chowk, Mahamaya Road, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Ajeet Singh Chhabra S/o Late Sardar Mohar Singh Chhabra, Aged About 69 Years Occupation Businessman, R/o Infront Of Khandelwal Petrol Pump, Amarkantak Road P.S. Dhanpuri, P.O. Budhar, Tehsil Sohagpur, District- Shahdol (M.P.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 13/07/2026 1. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR 2 passed by learned Sixth District Judge, Surguja, Amikapur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 9A/2022 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court who is prosecuting a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 05.02.2021 with respect to the suit property of the land Khasra No. 1413/31, 1415/8 and 1415/13 area 0.08 Acre, 0.05-1/2 Acre and 0.05-1/2 Acre, respectively situated at Main Road, Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur. He would further submit that the agreement was executed on 05.02.2021 and from the same day, the petitioner was put in possession of the subject land by the seller, however, when the seller could not executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, he filed the suit. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and also denied the agreement dated 05.02.2021 executed in favour of the plaintiff. He would further submit that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land after raising construction of the boundary wall over there and to ascertain the status of the possession of the plaintiff, he moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC before the learned trial Court for calling of a Commissioner Report which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court by holding that the Commissioner Report can not be called for creating the evidence in favour of the plaintiff. He would further submit that it is not any creation of the evidence but it is calling of the evidence in support of the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and raised a boundary wall there which also reflected from the photographs 3 annexed with the petition and only to take the status of the possession, the application ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Court but the same has been rejected, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the learned trial Court may be directed to call the Commissioner Report after allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. In support of his application, he would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Praga Tools Corporation Ltd. v. Smt. Mahboobunnissa Begum & Others, (2001) 6 SCC 238. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 4. Present is a case in which the plaintiff is prosecuting the suit for specific performance of the contract, the petitioner annexed a copy of the agreement dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure P-2) and from perusal of the said agreement, it transpires that the plaintiff is claiming the contract between the parties for sale of land by the defendants, however, there is no mention in the said agreement that at the time of its execution, the possession of the suit land was also handed over to the plaintiff. From perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant, it further transpires that, he denied the execution of the agreement and delivery of possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. The specific pleading of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit land for which he is prosecuting a suit for specific performance of the contract. Ones the plaintiff is claiming that he is in possession of the suit land and the defendant is denied the delivery of possession to the plaintiff of the suit land pursuant to an agreement allegedly 4 executed between them, it can not be said that there is any boundary dispute or demarcation dispute between the parties so that the calling of Commissioner Report is required. True it is that the dispute regarding the demarcation or identity of the land is to be decided only after appointing the Commissioner and by calling the report from him but in the present case, there appears to be no dispute regarding demarcation or identity of the land rather, the case of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit land to ascertain the status of the suit land, the report from the Commissioner may be called for. From consideration of the entire documents annexed with the petition as well as from the order passed by the learned trial Court, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff by holding that the provision of Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC can not be entertained for creating any evidence in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Since there is not dispute regarding the demarcation or identity of the suit land, I do not find any reason for interference with the impugned order in the present writ petition. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and therefore, no benefit could be extended to him by the said judgment. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit