1 CGHC010261722025 2026:CGHC:30320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 566 of 2025 1 - Smt. Chhama Khare W/o Vinod Kumar Khare Aged About 72 Years R/o 124, Ward No. 20, Chandkhuri Road, Hanoda, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Typed As Ksama Khare In The Record Of Trial Court ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Laxman Pradhan S/o Babaji Pradhan, Aged About 52 Years R/o Q.No. 1a/ Lane No. 16/ Sector 08, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandan Pradhan S/o Babaji Pradhan Aged About 60 Years R/o Q. No. 1a/ Lane No. 16/ Sector 08, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 16.07.2026. 1. Ms. Shivangi Agrawal for petitioner and Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/ State. 2. Heard. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.07.24 10:08:50 +0530 2 3. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by learned 4th Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 291 A/2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. She is prosecuting a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendant over the suit land Khasra No. 392/2, Area 0.07 Hec. situated at Village – Resali, Halka No. 22, Tahsil and District- Durg. The said land of Khasra No. 392/2 is subsequently changed in Khasra No. 871. She would further submit that she purchased the suit land through registered sale deed dated 22.10.1982 from its owner and came into possession of the sale deed. The suit land consists the four corner of the land of Sunder in northern side, land of Smt. Y Usha Rani in Southern side, land of Sukhbati Bai in eastern side and road in western side. He constructed a boundary wall there and came into possession over the same. In the year 2021, the defendant no. 1 and 2 started interference in the possession over the suit land of the plaintiff and claiming their own right over the property then he came to know that the defendant No. 1 and 2 allegedly purchased the land in the year 2007 and claiming over the same land in which the plaintiff is in possession since1982. Considering the dispute arose between the parties, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for calling of the Commissioner’s report with respect to the possession of the property and four corners of the said land. She further submit that issue involved in the present case is with respect to the 3 identification of the land, as to whether, the land in which the plaintiffs are in possession belongs to the land of defendants No. 1 and 2 or it was the plaintiff’s land. She would also submit that there was renumbering of Khasra Number of the land 392/2 and its subsequent Khasra Number is 871. However, at the time of renumbering, the area was also reduced which came the knowledge of the plaintiff in the year 2021 itself when the defendants raising dispute about possession of the suit land and she verify from the revenue records. Therefore, she filed an application for calling of the demarcation report with respect to her land Khasra No. 392/2 (new Khasra No. 871), area 0.073 Hec. She would further submit that the application has been rejected by the learned trial Court by the impugned order by saying that the application for calling of the Commissioner’s report cannot be allowed for creating or collecting of any evidence in favour of the plaintiff and it is for the plaintiff to prove her case in the admissible evidence. She would also submit that to decide the real dispute between the parties, the demarcation report is only the way which can settle the dispute finally and without there being any demarcation report, the issue involved in the suit cannot be materially adjudicated, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the trial Court may be directed to call the demarcation report with respect to the suit land. 5. None for the respondents though served. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the plaint (Annexure-P/10), it transpires that the plaintiff is pleaded in Para 5 of her plaint about the dispute between the parties that in the year 2021, the defendants No. 1 and 2 raise dispute by claiming the 4 land in their possession. The plaintiff has also pleaded that the defendants have got demarcated their land through which they are claiming possession over the land of the plaintiff and the plaintiff raise objection in the said demarcation before the concerned Tahsildar on 10.02.2021. With respect to the dispute raised by the defendants, the copy of the written statement filed by the defendant No 1 and 2 before the learned trial Court, has not been annexed with the present writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also filed a copy of the application made before the Nayab Tahsildar, Durg, which was filed for correction of the revenue record and in Para 4, the plaintiff has averd that Rin Pushtika with respect to the suit land was provided to her through order dated 21.01.2002 passed by Tahsildar, Durg in revenue case No. 71-A/74 year 2002-03. In the said Rin Pushtika, the details of the land has been mentioned as Khasra No. 871, area 0.06 Hec. and in para 5 of the said application, she averd that earlier the land of Khasra Number was 392/2, area 0.073 Hec. which was purchased by her, however, when the Rin Pushtika was misplaced, she applied for duplicate Rin Pushtika in which the area of the land is mentioned as 0.06 hec. and thus, it was refused by 0.013 hec. therefore, she filed an application for correction of the revenue record. 8. Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, a report was called by Tahsildar from the concerned Patwari, who gave his report on 18.04.2021 which has been annexed at page No. 35 of the petition in which it has been reported that :- “;g fd vkosfndk }kjk izLrqr jft0 c;ukek 22@10@1982 dh Nk;k izfr ds vuqlkj iqjkuk [kljk ua- 392@2 jdck 0-073 gs0 yxku 0-20 #- dks fodzsrk dUgS;kyky oYn fot;jke ns’keq[k] dks gjhizlkn oYn ljtw izlkn nsokaxu ls dzsrk Jhefr {kek [kjs N0x0 fouksn dqekj 5 [kjs lk0 9 lh0 128@7 fHkykbZ uxj rg0 o ftyk nqxZ ds }kjk dz; dj orZeku esa ckm.Mªhoky cuk dj dkfct gSA ftldk HkwfeLokeh }kjk lhekadu Hkh djk fy;k x;kA” 9. From perusal of the report submitted by Patwari dated 18.04.2021, it transpires that the plaintiff/ petitioner has already demarcated her land and it is in possession of the suit land by constructing the boundary wall over there. However, the petitioner have not filed any demarcation report which was conducted on her instance as has been reported by the concerned Patwari. Yet, the petitioner/ plaintiff has filed the application for demarcation of her land. 10.When the petitioner could not file the entire document which was in her possession to substantiate her claim i.e. the dispute raise by the defendants in the written statement, copy of the earlier demarcation report which was conducted in her instance and also the outcome of her application filed for correction of the revenue record, it cannot be said that there exist a boundary dispute between the parties which necessitated the demarcation report required to be called by the learned trial Court. 11.From perusal of the order impugned, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 12.Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika