1 CGHC010455982025 2026:CGHC:31790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1075 of 2025 1 - Gaytri Awasthi W/o Late Kaushal Prasad Aged About 64 Years 2 - Sushila Awasthi W/o Late Anil Awasthi Aged About 55 Years 3 - Santosh Awasthi S/o Late Anil Awasthi Aged About 30 Years 4 - Sunil Awasthi S/o Late Narottam Prasad Aged About 53 Years 5 - Laxmikant Awasthi S/o Late Narottam Prasad Aged About 48 Years 6 - Suresh Awasthi S/o Late Purushottam Prasad Aged About 67 Years 7 - Roshan Awasthi S/o Late Vinod Awasthi Aged About 38 Years 8 - Vinay Awasthi S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Aged About 42 Years 9 - Vivek Awasthi S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Aged About 40 Years 10 - Ramesh Awasthi S/o Late Ganga Prasad Aged About 78 Years, All are R/o Jagmal Chowk, Behind Evergreen Apartment, Awasthi Bada, Bilaspur, Tehsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Reva Ben Savariya W/o Ranchod Bhai Savariya Aged About 103 Years R/o Jagmal Block, Bilaspur, Tehsil And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Dead Through Legal Heirs- 1.A - Rajesh Rathore S/o Shri Kaji Govind Rathore Aged About 60 Years R/o Bhagat Singh Ward, Jagmal Chowk, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 1.B - Smt. Uma @ Urmila Rathore W/o Shri Mukund Rathore Aged About 71 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 1.C- Smt. Rekha Kakkad W/o Shri Shashikant Kakkad R/o Vidya Nagar, P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate and Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocates. For Respondents 1A to 1C Ms. Sanskriti Pawar, Advocate. For State : Shri Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.28 11:29:58 +0530 2 24.07. 202 6 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 25.01.2025 passed by 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No.A/98/2023 whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial court and they are prosecuting a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property of the land and the house constructed over there which has been shown in Schedule-A annexed with the plaint. He would submit that in the sale deed of the suit property which was executed in the year 1979, no Khasra number of the said land was mentioned, but its fourcorners were mentioned. When the plaintiffs tried to renovate the said construction, they faced difficulty in the proceeding of sanction of map for want of the Khasra number of the land. The plaintiffs are in possession of the subject land since 23.07.1979 i.e. from the date of its purchase and without there being any proper commissioner report with respect to its Khasra number, the names of plaintiffs cannot be mutated in the revenue records and they could not get their construction renovated. During the pendency of suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for calling of the Commissioner report, but the same has been dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiffs are trying to create the 3 documents of identification of their khasra Number and to get their revenue records corrected which cannot be done through application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. There is no other way to get their land identified except the Commissioner’s report from the revenue authorities and plaintiffs would become remediless if the Commissioner report is not called from the concerned revenue authority. Hence the impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and would submit that there is no dispute with respect to any demarcation or encroachment of the land of the petitioners and by way of application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the petitioners tried to create evidence in their favour with respect to their title of the land. Since the Khasra number has not been mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiffs, the same cannot be determined by way of Commissioner report. Therefore, the trial court has rightly considered that evidence cannot be created and commissioner’s report cannot be called, and has rightly rejected the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC which does not suffer from any perversity and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of copy of plaint annexed by the petitioners vide Ex.P/6 it transpires that the petitioners have filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction making the defendant No.1 as a party in the suit, however, in para 2 of their plaint they have specifically pleaded that they did not know about the defendant No.1 and on the basis of 4 sale deed, they made the defendant No.1 as party defendant in the suit. It is necessary here to notice paragraph 2 of the plaint which reads as under : “2. यह कि प्रतिवादी . 1 े संबंध में वमान में वादीगण ो ोई जानारी नहीं है। वाद संपत्ति! ो य किये गये किवक्रय पत्र े आधार पर प्रतिवादी . 1 ो घोषणात्म वाद े त्ति(ये आवश्य पक्षार होने े ारण पक्षार े रूप में संयोजिज किया गया है।" 6. Further, from perusal of paragraph 5 to 7 of the plaint it further transpires that the plaintiff filed the suit for determination of Khasra Number of the land on which they are in possession. However, there is no any encroachment dispute with the defendant No.1 and there is no specific pleading that there exist a dispute regarding boundary of the subject land. It is also necessary to quote here paragraph 5 to 7 of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs, which reads as under : “5. यह कि त्रुकि.वश किवक्रय पत्र किदनां 23.07.1979 में भूकिम ा खसरा नंबर और रबा उल्लेत्तिख नहीं हो पाया था किन्ु भूकिम ी (ंबाई-चौड़ाई अंकि ी गई है। 6. यह कि वमान में वाद मान पुराना हो गया है था मानव जीवन े किनवास हेु उपयुक्त नहीं रह गया है किंु अन्य ोई व्यवस्था न होने से वादीगण वाद मान में किनवासर च(े आ रहे है और नगर किनगम किब(ासपुर े समक्ष मरम्म एवं पुनर्निनमाण हेु नक्शा स्वीृ  राने ी ायवाही में आवेदन पत्र यह हर (ेने से इंार किया जा रहा है कि भूकिम े स्वामी से संबंतिध दस्ावेज किवक्रय पत्र े साथ साथ - भूकिम ा बी.1, पी2 भी प्रस्ु किये जाने े उपरां ही आवेदन स्वीार किया जाएगा और चूंकि किवक्रय पत्र में खसरा नंबर और रबा उल्लेत्तिख नहीं है इसत्ति(ए नामांरण भी राया जाना संभव नहीं हो पा रहा है। इस प्रार किवय पत्र किनष्पादन े समय हुई त्रुकि. े ारण किवय पत्र में खसरा नंबर एवं रबा अंकि नहीं होने और जीकिव वादी एवं मृ वादीगण ो इस संबंध में ोई जानारी न हो पाने े ारण पूव में इस संबंध में ोई ायवाही नहीं ी गई, वमान में 5 नवकिनमाण हेु दस्ावेजो ी आवश्या होने से पह(ी बार किवक्रय पत्र में खसरा नंबर, रबा उल्लेत्तिख न होने ी जानारी वादीगण ो हुई है। 7. यह कि चूंकि किवक्रय पत्र में खसरा नंबर एवं रबा उल्लेत्तिख नहीं है इसत्ति(ए वाद संपत्ति! ा सीमांन रार वास्किव खसरा नंबर ज्ञा किया जाना भी संभव नहीं है और छ०ग०भू०रा० संकिहा में उल्लेत्तिख प्रावधानो े अनुरूप अभिभत्ति(त्तिख भूकिम स्वामी े भू संख्यां (खसरा नंबर) ा सीमांन किया जाा है ब्जे े आधार पर सीमांन नहीं किया जाा है ऐसी स्थिस्थति में जबकि वादीगण अपने य किदनां 23.07.1979 से (गाार 43 वषP से वाद संपत्ति! पर किनबाध रूप से अपने किवक्रे ा प्रतिवादी .1 ी जानारी में स् रूप से ब्जे में च(े आ रहे है।)” 7. Order 26 Rule 9 CPC deals with commissions to make local investigations and the same is reproduced hereinbelow- “Commissions to make local investigations.- In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.” 8. From perusal of pleadings, it is quite vivid that the defendant No.1 have been made as party defendant without any cause of action against her, as has been pleaded by the plaintiffs in paragraph 2 of their plaint. Further, when the plaintiffs have made the defendant No.1 as party in the suit who was the vendor of the suit land, it is for the plaintiffs to get the revenue record of defendant No.1 collected with respect to the suit property and get the revenue records corrected. In absence of any 6 Khasra number mentioned in the sale deed, it cannot be determined that the possession of plaintiffs is any particular piece of Khasra number. Though fourcorners have been shown in the sale deed, but the nature of dispute raised by the plaintiffs does not entitle them to get the commissioner report obtained by the order of the court only to ascertain the Khasra number. The claim of the plaintiffs amount to creating document in their favour regarding Khasra Number of the property over which they are claiming their possession. The commissioner’s report cannot be called for creation or collection of evidence. From the material produced by the petitioners it is quite vivid that there is no dispute about any encroachment or its boundary, but it is only for ascertaining Khasra number of land, the plaintiffs have filed the suit. 9. The order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in Devi Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation Raipur & Another, {WP(227)No.204 of 2020} is based on distinguishable facts and consideration and therefore no benefit can be extended to the petitioners from that judgment cited and relied by them. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for calling of Commissioner’s report. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder