1 CGHC010300972026 2026:CGHC:39577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1162 of 2026 1 - Ram Kumar S/o Late Indrapal Singh Aged About 62 Years Both Are Caste Of Kshatriya, Thakur R/o Bairagpara, Pandariya, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham C. G. 2 - Chandrabhan S/o Late Dashrath Singh Thakur Aged About 59 Years Caste Of Kshatriya Thakur R/o Bairagpara, Pandariya Tehsil Pandariya District Kabirdham C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Late Mulchand Sharma Aged About 49 Years Caste Bramhin R/o Ward No. 06, Pandariya, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham C. G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Kabirdham District Kabirdham C. G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 09/09/2026 1. Default pointed out by the Registry is waived. 2. Heard. 3. Present is writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.06.2026 passed by the SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.11 12:03:48 +0530 2 learned Additional Judge, Pandariya to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kawardha in Civil Suit No.9A/2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioner to bring the relevant documents and additional evidence on record has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.1 is prosecuting a suit and the present petitioners are defendant No.1 and 2 before the learned trial Court and there is dispute relates to land admeasuring 38.78 acres situated at Village - Singarpur, Patwari Halka No.25, Tehsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham, which was originally recorded in the names of Late Mulchand Sharma and his wife Late Champa Bai. Late Rishi Kumar Sharma was the brother of the plaintiff and that the rights and interest of the petitioners are connected with the succession and title relating to the aforesaid disputed property. He would submit that after the death of Late Mulchand Sharma and Late Champa Bai, the disputed land was mutated in the name of Late Rishi Kumar Sharma in the revenue records. During pendency of the proceedings, Late Rishi Kumar Sharma had executed an affidavit dated 09.03.2021 in respect of the disputed property. The petitioners contend that the facts relating to the genealogy, succession, mutation and the said affidavit are material for proper adjudication of the dispute. He would further submit that the petitioners sought to bring the relevant documents and additional evidence on record, which are directly connected with the subject matter of the suit. The opposite parties would suffer no prejudice, as they would have full opportunity to rebut the additional evidence and cross-examine the concerned witnesses. Therefore, the learned Court below ought not to have rejected the 3 application without properly considering the relevance and necessity of the proposed evidence, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court may be set aside and the petitioners may be permitted to bring the relevant documents and additional evidence on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the document annexed with the petition. 6. After perusal of the documents available on record and upon consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that the dispute relates to 38.78 acres of land situated at Village - Sringarpur, Patwari Halka No.25, Tehsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham. The petitioners have sought to place certain documents and additional evidence on record concerning the alleged succession, mutation of the disputed land and the affidavit dated 09.03.2021 said to have been executed by Late Rishi Kumar Sharma. However, from the material available on record, the petitioners have failed to establish that the said documents could not have been produced before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage or that their non-production would cause any prejudice which cannot otherwise be addressed in the course of the trial. The petitioners have also failed to demonstrate that the proposed additional evidence is indispensable for deciding the controversy involved in the suit. The application appears to be an attempt to introduce further material after the parties have already led their evidence. The learned trial Court, after considering the application and the material available on record, has rejected the same. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds 4 that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in exercising its discretion. No sufficient ground is made out for interference in the present petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit