1 2026:CGHC:8021 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 147 of 2026 1 - Bundkunwar (Died) Nill 1.1 - 1 (A) Jethiyabai W/o Heeralala Suryavanshi Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Bodri Tahsil- Bilha District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.2 - 1 (B) Khelan Bai W/o Dilharan Suryavanshi Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Bodri, Tahsil- Bilha District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.3 - 1 (C) Laxman Lal S/o Late Arjunlal Suryavanshi Aged About 45 Years R/o Iti Rampur Behind Police Station Dhorbahar Distt- Korba (C.G.) 1.4 - 1 (D) Om Prakash S/o Late Arjunlal Suryavanshi Aged About 42 Years R/o Pathripara Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Savita Agrawal W/o Madanlal Agrawal Aged About 41 Years R/o Link Road, Bilaspur Tah- And Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri J.K. Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. An application under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC was moved by defendant No.1 in Civil Suit (A) No.76 of 2018 before the learned trial Court, which was allowed vide order dated 2.1.2026. NIRMALA RAO 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit was filed in the year 2011 whereas, defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC was preferred on 24.11.2024 after 13 years. He would submit that the documents were within possession of defendant No.1 but he failed to explain sufficient reasons for filing an application at belated stage. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. Defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC and same has been allowed by the learned trial Court. If the learned trial Court allowed the application moved under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, it does not mean that the documents have been admitted in evidence rather their relevancy would be subject to evidence adduced by the parties. Further, the plaintiffs would get sufficient opportunity to revert authenticity or relevancy of those documents. The relevancy of the documents will be examined by the learned trial Court during course of the trial and application could not be rejected on the ground that same has been moved at belated stage. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my considered opinion, the order passed by the learned trial Court does not require interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi