1 2026:CGHC:15926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 396 of 2026 1 - Satyandra Jaiswal S/o Late Devi Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 52 Years R/o Sarafa Line, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (As Per Annexure P/1 The Same Name Is Not Mentioned But The Above Is Correct Name Of Legal Representative) 2 - Kishore Jaiswal S/o Late Devi Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 49 Years R/o Sarafa Line, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (As Per Annexure P/1 The Same Name Is Not Mentioned But The Above Is Correct Name Of Legal Representative) 3 - Shail Jaiswal W/o Jagdish Jaiswal Aged About 55 Years R/o Sarafa Line, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (As Per Annexure P/1 The Same Name Is Not Mentioned But The Above Is Correct Name Of Legal Representative) 4 - Rajeshri Jaiswal W/o U. Jaiswal Aged About 57 Years R/o Sarafa Line, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (As Per Annexure P/1 The Same Name Is Not Mentioned But The Above Is Correct Name Of Legal Representative) 5 - Binnu Jaiswal W/o Rajendra Jaiswal Aged About 54 Years R/o Sarafa Line, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (As Per Annexure P/1 The Same Name Is Not Mentioned But The Above Is Correct Name Of Legal Representative) ... Petitioners versus VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.20 19:20:09 +0530 2 Shri Ram Janki Bade Mandir Trust Samiti Sarafa Line, Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Through Shyamjee Dewangan, President Of Its Trust ---Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 07/04/2026 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 06.03.2026, passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, in Civil Execution Case/159/2009, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC has been rejected. The petitioners have prayed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of the execution court for kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Takhatpur in Execution Case No. 159/2009, whereby the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC has been rejected; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may direct the learned Executing Court to allow the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC and appoint a Commissioner for local investigation to ascertain 3 the correct identity, location and boundaries of the suit property; 10.4 Any other relief may also be granted in favour of the Petitioners as may deem fit by this Hon'ble Court as per the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent/plaintiff had filed a civil suit for vacant possession of the suit property situated at village Takhatpur, District Bilaspur shown in the schedule-A annexed with the plaint. After a full-fledged trial, the suit has been decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.2006 and a decree for vacation possession of the suit property along with the arrears of rent have been passed. The petitioners/ defendants have lost in the first appeal as well as in the second appeal and the decree for vacation possession in favour of the respondent/plaintiff is maintained. 3. The respondent/plaintiff prosecuting the execution application of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, in which various applications have been filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors time to time, however their objections/applications have been rejected by the learned Executing Court. In the execution proceedings, the defendants/judgment debtors raised the objection regarding identification of the suit property and filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of a Commissioner to conduct site inspection and to submit a report with respect to identity of the suit property, as the plaintiff/decree holder himself had filed an application under Section 152 of CPC before the learned Executing 4 Court for correction of the boundary of the suit property in the map annexed with the decree. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have filed a civil suit No. 11-A/2020 before the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property, which is pending for its consideration. The suit property is the defendants’ owned property, which were constructed by their grandfather Babulal Jaiswal in the year 1933 over the land of khasra No. 572, which is the abadi land. The petitioners are regularly paying municipal taxes. Since, the respondent/decree holder themselves considered that there is defect in map of the suit property, they filed an application for correction of the map, the decree cannot be executed without proper identification of the suit property, for which they filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, but the same has been rejected by the learned Executing Court. The said order of rejection of their application is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the respondent/decree holder themselves have submitted an application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of CPC, before the learned Executing Court for correction of the map of the suit property. When the respondent/decree holder themselves have considered that the description of the suit property is not correct, the decree cannot be executed with incorrect description of property. He would also submit that, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/decree holder, if the application of the petitioners/judgment debtors would be allowed and Commissioner’s report would be called with respect to the proper identification of the suit property. The suit property is 5 constructed by the petitioners’ grandfather Babulal Jaiswal and it is their ancestral property and they are paying regular municipal taxes. If the petitioners would be dispossessed an execution of the decree, they would be in irreparable loss and if the order with respect to proper identification of the property be passed, none of the parties would be prejudiced and the dispute between the parties would be effectively adjudicated. He would also submit that the civil suit No. 11-A/2020 filed by the petitioners with respect to the same suit property before the learned trial Court is also pending for its consideration, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the learned Executing Court may be directed to obtain the Commissioner’s report with respect to the identification of the suit property by allowing the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. 5. In the case, Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate appeared today suo motu and has filed certain documents along with an application for taking documents on record supported by the affidavit and Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent. He would submit that during pendency of the execution proceedings, various objections including the objection regarding identification of the suit property, raised by the petitioners, have been decided by the learned Executing Court as well as by coordinate bench of this Court. The petitioners have filed various applications in the execution proceedings time to time only to cause delay in execution of the decree, however in all the times, their applications have been rejected. He would also submit that earlier the petitioners raised the same issue of identification of the suit property by filing his application under Section 47 of the CPC, which was rejected by the 6 learned trial Court. The said rejection of the application was challenged by the petitioners in Civil Revision No. 32 of 2021 before this Court and the coordinate bench of this Court vide its order dated 19.04.2023 held that the suit property is duly identified as per schedule-A annexed with the plaint and the objections of the petitioners have rightly been rejected by the learned Executing Court. This order dated 19.04.2023 passed in Civil Revision No. 32 of 2021 has not been further challenged and attained its finality. Although, the respondent/decree holder had filed an application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of CPC before the learned Executing Court, but the same has been withdrawn. Despite having the opportunity, the petitioners have not raised any ground in Civil Revision No. 32 of 2021 that the respondent/decree holder have filed their application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of CPC, which was well within the knowledge of the petitioners. He would draw attention of this Court to the order sheets of the learned Executing Court, by which various applications of the petitioners/judgment debtors have been rejected and the transfer application of the execution proceedings have also been rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, Bilaspur vide its order dated 30.01.2026, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the writ petition. 7. On 06.04.2026, an extreme urgency was shown by the petitioners, as the demolition proceedings in execution of the decree was going on and therefore, the matter was taken up for hearing on the same 7 day, at 2:30 pm. During midst of hearing of the case, when this Court found that certain relevant documents have not been annexed with the petition, the time was granted to learned counsel for the petitioners to submit the relevant documents and an interim order with respect to maintaining status-quo as on 06.04.2026 at about 2:50 pm was passed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the execution proceedings and the case has been fixed for today i.e. on 07.04.2026. 8. Today, when the matter is being taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, by the covering memo dated 07.04.2026, he has filed the copies of the order sheets of the learned trial Court of civil suit No. 11-A/2020, in which the petitioners are prosecuting their civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property, copy of the plaint filed by them. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the petitioners have deposited Rs. 10,000/- before the learned trial Court in compliance of the order dated 06.04.2026. The petitioners could not file any document that in the civil suit filed by them, any interim protection is granted by the learned trial Court in their favour. When this Court examined the documents annexed by the respective parties in the petition, it transpires that the petitioners had earlier filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC, which was dismissed by the learned Executing Court, against which the petitioners preferred civil revision before this Court. 9. The respondent filed a copy of the order dated 19.04.2023, passed by coordinate bench of this Court in civil revision No. 32 of 2021, 8 which clearly demonstrates that the order of rejection of the application of Section 47 of CPC was under challenge in that civil revision and it has been held in the order that the identity of the suit property has been settled. It is necessary here to quote the order passed in civil revision No. 32 of 2021, dated 19.04.2023, which is as under: “2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants herein / judgment debtors would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application filed under Section 47 of the CPC, as identity of the suit land is not established, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant herein / plaintiff / decree holder would submit that the decree of possession of the suit accommodation situated at Takhatpur passed by the trial Court has also been confirmed by this Court in S.A.No. 51/2008 by judgment dated 28- 1-2020, as such, the instant civil revision deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. The trial Court has passed decree in favour of the plaintiff on 28-1-2006 and the suit map is attached as Schedule A and that has been confirmed by the first appellate court and the second appellate court as well in S.A.No. 51/2008, decided on 28-1-2020. Since the suit property is duly identified and annexed as 9 Schedule A, the learned executing court is absolutely justified in dismissing the application under Section 47 of the CPC. As such, the civil revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).” 10. When the petitioners were granted time on 06.04.2026 to submit relevant documents, he has not chosen to file the copy of the application filed by them before the learned Executing Court under Section 47 of the CPC to demonstrate that, they actually have not claimed the identification of the suit property in that application for which the order has been passed. 11. From the order sheet of the learned Executing Court submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, it transpires that the petitioners have made various applications, which has been decided time to time. The execution application is pending since long back, but the petitioners have made application for calling of the Commissioner’s report with respect to identification of the suit property at a highly belated stage, particularly when the identification of the land has already been upheld by the order dated 19.04.2023, passed in civil revision No. 32 of 2021. It further transpires from the order sheet of the learned Executing Court dated 27.07.2021 that the petitioners have also filed a WP(227) No. 332 of 2021, but there is no document with that respect has also been filed. From the order sheet of the learned Executing Court dated 29.07.2021, it transpires that the petitioners have raised identification of the suit property by filing their application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC, which was rejected on the same day. Another application of Section 10 47 of CPC has been rejected on 29.07.2021. The third application under Section 47 of CPC was also rejected on the same day, however the petitioners have not filed any document to substantiate that the issue of identification of the suit property have not been raised earlier in their application filed under Section 47 of CPC. The civil revision No. 32 of 2021 was filed against the order of rejection of the application under Section 47 of CPC and the same has been upheld by the order dated 19.04.2023, therefore, the identity of the suit property has been settled, yet the petitioners tried to raise the ground that the identity of the suit property is disputed for which they filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. 12. Once the identity of the suit property has been settled, the issue cannot be re-agitated by time and again. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by coordinate bench of this Court in civil revision No. 32 of 2021 and also the issue the stage of objection, in which it has been raised by the petitioners, the application filed by the petitioners has been rejected. The order passed by learned Executing Court rejecting the application of the petitioners does not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and hereby dismissed. 14. The interim order granted by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved