1 2026:CGHC:17301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 435 of 2026 1 - Hariprasad S/o Late Shobhit Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Raghunathpur, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhatrapal S/o Late Shobhit Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Raghunathpur, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Babulal S/o Late Shobhit Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Raghunathpur, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Shanti Devi Wd/o Late Shobhit Ram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Raghunathpur, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 5 - Ramprasad S/o Late Samaru Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Raghunathpur, P S And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Khulobai W/o Chetram Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Darridih, P S And P O And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Sulochani Bai W/o Mohar Sai Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Silphili, Chandauridand, Tahsil Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.04.17 10:56:48 +0530 2 3 - Dhaneshwari W/o Vashista Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sighma, Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 5 - Tulaso Bai @ Tulo Bai D/o Samru And W/o Ramsai Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Raghunathpur, P.S. And Tahsil Raghunathpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 15/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by learned First Civil Judge Junior Division, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 227A/2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, they are prosecuting a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to the suit property shown in Schedule “A” and “B”. It is the 3 specific case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that they are governed by their own custom as they belongs to Kanwar, Scheduled Tribe Community and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable to their community. She would further submit that the defendants have denied in the written statement that they have not governed by their own customary law but they are governed by the Hindu Succession Act, therefore, the issue between the parties, as to whether, the parties are governed by their own custom or the Hindu Succession Act is applicable to them is the vital issue involved in the present suit, yet the learned trial Court has not frame that issues despite proposed by the petitioners/plaintiffs by their application and rejected the same, therefore, the learned trial Court may be directed to frame the issue and to try the same alongwith other issues. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. In the plaint, annexed at page No. 16 as Annexure P/2, in para 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded as under :- "यह कि, उभयपक्ष  किपता शोभिभता, दादा समरू एवं परदादा (किपता  किपता  किपता) ठुर्रु एवं उन किपता किनर्जन ताथा उभयपक्षर सभ  वंर र्जनर्जकिता  सदास्य ह!।  वंर र्जकिता अनस$चि&ता र्जनर्जकिता ह'। उत्तरधि*र  ममले म, किहन्दू उत्तरधि*र अधि*किनयम 1956 भग 2 0 उप*र 2  अनसर अनस$चि&ता र्जनर्जकिता  सदास्य हन  रण उत्तरधि*र  ममले म, किहन्दू उत्तरधि*र अधि*किनयम 1956 स शोचिसता न हर प्राचि&न किहन्दू ले3 र्ज (प्राथागता किवंधि*) एवं  वंर र्जनर्जकिता म, अत्यता प्राचि&नले स प्रा&चिलेता प्राथा र्ज प्रा&न हन  सथा ले किहतार ह' ताथा किवंधि* 0 शोक्ति6ता प्राप्ता र &0 ह', जिर्जस अनसर किपता  सम्पभित्त म, किपता  म:त्य  उपरता चिसर्फ उन पत्र  उत्तरधि*र प्राप्ता हता ह'। पत्र 0 उपक्ति=किता म, पत्र  ई उतातारधि*र प्राप्ता नह? हता ह'। स्त्र वंग म,  वंले किवं*वं  उस र्जवंनले ता भरण-पषण 0 सम ता सधिमता किहता प्राप्ता हता ह!। मकिहले वंग  अन्य किस सदास्य पत्र, बहन य आदिदा  प'ता: वं प$वंर्जD 0 सम्पभित्त म, ई उत्तरधि*र नह? हता इस प्रार समरू एवं उस बड़ा पत्र शोभिभता  म:त्य  पश्चाताH उस0 सम्पभित्त वंदा भ$धिम म, एमत्र उत्तरधि*र समरू  पत्र वंदाI रमप्रासदा एवं शोभिभता  पत्र हरिरप्रासदा, छत्रपले एवं बब$लेले  प्राप्ता हता ह' ताथा वंह एमत्र सम्प$ण भ$धिम  स्वंम भ हुए। वंदाIगण 0 उपक्ति=किता म, प्राकितावंदाI क्र. 01, 02, 03  ई ह किहस्स एवं किहता वंदा भ$धिम म, 4 प्राप्ता नह? हता ह'।  वंर र्जनर्जकिता 0 यह प्राथा किपढ़ीI दार किपढ़ीI समर्ज म, किनरतार किनर्विवंPघ्न एवं अनवंतार समर्ज  ल्यणर प्राथा हन स किवंधि*  रूप ले चिलेय ह'।" 6. The written statement of the defendants have also been annexed as Annexure P/3 which is at page No. 31 and in para 10, the defendants denied the applicability of their own custom and the para 10 of the written statement reads as under :- "यह कि वं दा पत्र 0 क्तिST क्रम  10 असत्य, झू$ठु वं बन वंटीI हन   रण अम न्य ह'। यह किवंशो ष रूप स अम न्य ह' कि  वंर र्ज किता अनस$चि&ता र्जनर्ज किता ह'। उत्तर धि* र  म मले म किहन्दु उत्तर धि* र अधि*किनतायम 1956 भ गता 2 0 उप* र 2  अनस र अनस$चि&ता र्जनर्ज किता  सदास्य हन   रण उत्तर धि* र  म मले म किहन्दु उत्तर धि* र अधि*किनयम 1956 शो चिसता न हर प्रा& न किहन्दु ले र्ज (प्राथागता किवंधि*) एवं  वंर र्जनर्ज किता म अत्यत्र प्रा & न ले स प्रा&चिलेता प्राथा र्ज प्रा & न हन  स था ले किहता र ह'। वं स्ताकिवंता यह ह' प्राकितावं दाI क्रम  1 एवं प्राकितावं दाI क्रम  5  किपता स्वं० समरू  द्वा र अपन र्ज वंन  ले म, ह प्राकितावं दाI क्रम  1 एवं प्राकितावं दाI क्रम  5  उन ह एवं किहस्स भ$धिम  प्रादा न र  किबर्ज  स्ता र दिदाय गय था । स्वं० समरू 0 म:त्य  पश्चा ता वं दाIगण  द्वा र भ प्राकितावं दाI क्रम  1 एवं 5  उन ह एवं भ$धिम पर : किष  य र : किष उपर्ज / रूपय प्रादा न किय र्ज ता था ,  ले न्तार म, प्राकितावं दाI क्रम  1 र्ज उस किपता स्वं० समरू  द्वा र घर र्ज ह रखा गय था  द्वा र \ स्वंय : किष  य र अपन र्ज वंप र्जन रन लेग था । वं स्ताकिवंता यह भ ह' कि प्राकितावं दाI क्रम  1 एवं 5  किपता स्वं० समरू  द्वा र परिरचिशोष्ठ अ एवं ब 0 भ$धिम म स प्राकितावं दाI क्रम  1 एवं 5  ह एवं किहस्स  प्रादा न र दिदाय गय था , &कि प्राकितावं दाI क्रम  1 एवं 5  उस किपता  द्वा र अपन र्ज वंन ले म, ह उपर6ता वंर्णिणPता भ$धिम प्रादा न र दिदाय गय था अताएवं उपर6ता वं दाभ$धिम  सब* म (प्राथागता किवंधि*) ले ग$ नह हता ह' इस  रण स वं दाIगण  द्वा र प्रास्ताता व्यवंह र वं दा किनरस्ता किय र्ज न यग्य ह'। शो ष थान ममगढता बन वंटीI हन   रण अम न्य ह'।" 7. Since, the issue cropped up with respect to the applicability of their customary law or applicability of the Hindu Succession Act which does affect the ultimate outcome of the suit, as to whether, there is any customary law prevailing in the community of the parties, therefore, the learned trial Court is required to frame the issue with respect to applicability of the said customary law upon the parties. 5 8. From perusal of the issues framed on 03.09.2024 by the learned trial Court, it also transpires that in all the 04 issues, there is no contents of the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act or the customary law in the community of the parties and consideration over the issue proposed by the plaintiffs may have a substantial bearing upon ultimate outcome of the suit. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as material annexed with the writ petition, the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC appears to be erroneous, and therefore, it is accordingly set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to frame the issue proposed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in their application filed on 30.09.2024 under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC and only the proposed issue No.1 “क्या वादीगण एवा प्रतिवादीगण कवार जनजति क होकर व्यक्तिक्ग प्रथा यातिन जतिग प्रथा से शासिसे हो हो?” should be framed and to try the said additional issue alongwith other issues framed by learned trial Court in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the present writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit