1 CGHC010332882026 2026:CGHC:38527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1108 of 2026 Surendra Banjare S/o Late Shri Kartik Ram Banjare Aged About 54 Years Occupation- Teacher, Cluster Coordinator, R/o Simran City Chourasiya Colony Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ku. Neha Banjare S/o Surendra Banjare Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Chhachhanpairi, Police Station- Mujgahan, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Kavita Banjare D/o Surendra Banjare Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chhachhanpairi, Police Station- Mujgahan, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Ku. Suyash Banjare D/o Surendra Banjare Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Chhachhanpairi, Police Station- Mujgahan, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 4 - Tikendra Banjare S/o Surendra Banjare Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Chhachhanpairi, Police Station- Mujgahan, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 5 - Minor Rohan Banjare S/o Surendra Banjare Aged About 16 Years (The Respondent No.5 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bhagwati Banjare W/o Surendra Banjare) R/o Village Chhachhanpairi, Police Station- Mujgahan, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) (Plaintifes) SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.02 17:29:54 +0530 2 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) (Defendant No.2) 7 - Santosh Lohana S/o Late Ashok Lohana R/o House No. C-67, Near Dronacharya School, Pawan Vihar Colony Rishabh Nagar, Amlidih Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 3) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Avinash Singh, G. A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 08.08.2026 passed by learned 1st Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Junior Division, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 54A/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court, where the respondents No. 1 to 5 are prosecuting a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit properties. The suit was filed on 06.02.2024 for declaring that the suit properties are their ancestral property and the sale deed dated 21.11.2024 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 is null and void. The case is presently at the stage of recording plaintiff's evidence and the 3 recording of plaintiff's evidence has not been started yet. During the pendency of the proceeding, the defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A of the CPC along with certain documents of the other sale deeds to prove the fact that the suit property is not the ancestral property, but it is his self-acquired property. The application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned trial Court holding that it is filed beyond the period of two and half years from filing of the suit, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner is not bona fide. He would further submit that the evidence has not been started yet and there is no limitation of filing of the document if it is relevant. The documents are very relevant in the defense of the petitioner, which ought to have been taken on record, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the documents may be taken on record. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the writ petition. 5. The issue involved in the present writ petition is the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner, who is the defendant before the learned trial Court, filed under Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC provides the filing of the document which are in possession of the defendants shall be filed along with written statement and the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of CPC provides that the document which ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant under this rule and if it is not produced, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 6. 6. It is necessary to notice here the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC which reads as under: 4 “1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.— (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon any document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence, relief or claim for set- off, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be entered in the list referred to in sub-rule (1) but is not so entered, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents— (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.] 7. When the petitioner, who is the defendant before the learned trial Court, have specifically taken the plea that the suit properties are not the ancestral properties, but it is his self-acquired property, he is required to prove his case by filing relevant documents, for which he moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1A of the CPC along with the documents to prove that it is his self-acquired property. At this stage, it cannot be said that the documents are relevant or irrelevant, but it is only for taking the document on record, subject to its admissibility and evidentiary value. It is also a relevant fact that the plaintiff's evidence has not been started yet, as has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 8. From perusal of the document annexed with the application under Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC, it transpires that the registered sale deeds which are in favour of the petitioner/defendant, therefore, these documents are appears to be relevant for proper adjudication of the suit, which ought to be taken on record. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the documents filed by the defendant should be taken on record, particularly when the defendant's evidence has not been started yet, subject to its admissibility and evidentiary value. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.08.2026 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 8 Rule 1A of the CPC is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- payable to the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is directed to take the document in question on record, subject to its proof and admissibility in accordance with law during the course of evidence. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sumit