1 CGHC010352872026 2026:CGHC:40299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1196 of 2026 1 - Gomati Devi W/o Jagarnath Aged About 55 Years D/o Bahal Ram, Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Kunjnagar Alias Kurridiha, Police Station Jainagar, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (Cg) 2 - Smt. Sudha Singh W/o Shailendra Singh Aged About 30 Years Caste Kshatriya, R/o Village Navapara, Police Station And Tehsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (Cg) 3 - Smt. Madhuri Tripathi W/o Jai Prakash Tripathi Aged About 38 Years Caste Brahmin, R/o Mohalla Brahmapara, Nagar, Police Station And Tehsil- Surajpur, District Surajpur (Cg) 4 - Shiv Agrawal S/o Niranjan Agrawal Aged About 35 Years Caste - Agrawal, R/o Main Road Surajpur, Nagar, Police Station And Tehsil - Surajpur, District Surajpur (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Nirmala Wd/o Late Ranjit Ram Aged About 25 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Dumariya, Post - Parri, Tehsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (Cg) 2 - Deepak S/o Late Ranjit Ram Aged About 5 Years Since Minor Through His Mother Nirmala, Widow Of Late Ranjit Ram, Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Dumariya, Post Parri, Tehsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G) 3 - Chintu S/o Late Ranjit Ram Aged About 2 Years Since Minor Through His Mother Nirmala, Widow Of Late Ranjit Ram, Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Dumariya, Post Parri, Tehsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G) 4 - Somari Bai D/o Jagar Sai @ Jag Sai Aged About 26 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Dumariya, Post Parri, Tehsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G) 5 - Sukham S/o Late Keshav Ram Aged About 45 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Dumariya, Post Parri, Tehsil - Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G) 6 - Tilak Ram S/o Late Keshav Ram Aged About 40 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village - Dumariya, Post Parri, Tehsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G) SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.17 11:51:38 +0530 2 7 - Gayatri Wd/o Late Lokpal Aged About 45 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Dumariya, Post Parri, Tehsil - Surajpur, District- Surajpur (Cg) 8 - Sushil S/o Late Lokpal Aged About 15 Years Minor Through His Mother Gayatri W/o Late Lokpal, Caste- Rajwar, R/o Village Dumariya, Post-Parri, Tehsil Surajpur, District-Surajpur (C.G) 9 - Sufal S/o Late Lokpal Aged About 12 Years Minor Through His Mother Gayatri, W/o Late Lokpal, Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Dumariya, Post- Parri, Tehsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (Cg) 10 - Tijo Bai Wd/o Late Sonai Ram Aged About 75 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Premnagar, Police Station And Tehsil - Premnagar, District- Surajpur (Cg) 11 - Nandu Ram S/o Late Sonai Ram Aged About 58 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Premnagar, Police Station And Tehsil Premnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G) 12 - Awadh Bihari S/o Late Sonai Ram Aged About 49 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Premnagar, Police Station And Tehsil Premnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G) 13 - Ramkeli D/o Late Sonai Ram Aged About 55 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Dumariya, Ps Patna, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G) 14 - Phoolbasiya D/o Late Sonai Ram Aged About 52 Years Caste- Rajwar, R/o Village Tendupara, Police Chowki Basdei, Police Station And Tehsil Surajpur, District-Surajpur (Cg) 15 - Munni Bai D/o Late Sonai Ram Aged About 45 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Sohagpur, Police Chowki-Kareji, Ps Vishrampur, Tehsil And District- Surajpur (Cg) 16 - Podahin W/o Jagar Sai @ Jag Sai Aged About 60 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Ghanghari, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G) 17 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodia, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 15/09/2026 1. Heard. 3 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Surajpur in Civil Suit No.40-A/2008 whereby the application filed by the defendants No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC and under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC have been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that during the trial of the case, the defendants have proposed the additional issue which is required to be framed for adjudication of the real dispute between the parties, they would refer the proposed issue, which has been made in their application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC (Annexure P-5). He would submit that since the controversial pleading has been made by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants with respect to the status of Podahin @ Rajmati, the issue with respect to her status is required to be framed which is the substantial issue involved in the case to determine the rights of the parties over the property originally belongs to Raghunath, the paternity of the plaintiffs are under dispute, therefore, the proposed issue is required to be framed in the case. He would further submit that although, the plaintiffs’ evidence have been recorded and the documents filed by the defendants have been exhibited during cross-examination of the plaintiff’s evidence which is required to be proved in accordance with law, therefore, they have made an application under Order 16 Rule 6 for calling of the original record from where the certified copies of the documents have been obtained. The learned trial Court rejected both these applications by observing that the written statement has already been filed on 16.11.2008 and the case is in its stage of defendants’ evidence. Further 4 that the issues have been framed on 07.02.2013 and the application has been filed on 17.07.2026 which is highly belated and in between that, plaintiffs’ evidence has already been examined, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 has been rejected. He would further submit that while rejected the application under Order 16 Rule 6 of CPC, the learned trial Court observed that since the document is public document and has already been exhibited, there is no need to call the original record for further evidence. He would further submit that in absence of any original record, the authenticity of the document can not be proved by the defendants, therefore, calling of the original record is necessary, and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the applications filed by the petitioners may be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. The sequence of events are not in dispute that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 07.05.2008 and thereafter, on 06.11.2008, the written statement has been filed by the defendants No.1 and the other defendants have filed the written statements on 25.01.2010. From perusal of the document (Annexure P-7), the issues have already been framed on 07.02.2013 and thereafter, as per the document (Annexure P-5), which is the copy of the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, is filed on 27.07.2026 that is after about more than 13 years. It further transpires from the impugned order that in between that period, the plaintiffs’ evidence have been examined and at present, the case has been fixed for recording of the defendants’ evidence. Since, a 5 substantial time has been elapsed and in between that the plaintiffs’ evidence have already been examined, the written statement has been filed on 06.11.2008 and the issues have already been framed in the year, 2013. The defendants were well aware of their defence and issues involved in the case and the issues which has been framed by the learned trial Court in the year, 2013, yet they have not chosen to file any application for framing of additional issue but since for a long time and it is only at the stage of defendants’ evidence, the application has been filed which has been rejected by the learned trial Court. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the rejection of the application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC by the learned Trial Court. 7. So far as the rejection of the application filed under Order 16 Rule 6 of the CPC is concerned, it transpires that the learned trial Court has already observed that the certified copies of the documents in question had been exhibited without any objection. In such circumstances, there was no necessity to summon the original record for any further clarification, particularly when the documents had already been exhibited in evidence. The said finding does not warrant any interference, and the order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application under Order 16 Rule 6 of the CPC calls for no interference. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit