1 2026:CGHC:14434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 320 of 2026 1 - Ankit Sharma S/o Late Pramod @ Madan Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Katiyapara, Dhamnibada, Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, (C.G.) Present Address Jora Para, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Shikha Sharma W/o Sandeep Sharma (D/o Late Pramod @ Madan Sharma) Aged About 34 Years R/o Padum Nagar, Bhilai- 03, Tahsil Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Nini @ Deepa Tiwari W/o Avinash Tiwari (D/o Late Pramod @ Madan Sharma) Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jawalpur, Post Balauda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Divya @ Deepika W/o Raja Yadav (D/o Late Pramod @ Madan Sharma) Aged About 30 Years R/o Achankapur, Bodri, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Sushila Sharma W/o Late Pramod @ Madan Sharma Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Dhamni, Post Office Chakrabhatha, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Basant Kumar Sharma S/o Late Ramadhar Sharma Aged About 77 Years R/o Village Dhamni, Post Office Chakrabhatha, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Late Ramadhar Sharma Aged About 75 ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.04.07 18:48:17 +0530 2 Years R/o Village Dhamni, Post Office Chakrabhatha, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Vinod Sharma S/o Late Ramadhar Sharma Aged About 73 Years R/o Katiyapara, Dhamnibada, Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Nirmala Sharma W/o Late Anil @ Kamod Sharma Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Dhamni, Post Office Chakrabhatha, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Priyanka Pandey W/o Vikas Pandey (D/o Late Anil @ Kamod Sharma) Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - Amit Sharma S/o Late Anil @ Kamod Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Dhamni, Post Office Chakrabhatha, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Rani Pandey W/o Ramkrishna Pandey (D/o Late Ramadhar Sharma) Aged About 61 Years R/o Bangalipara, Sarkanda, Lane No. 03, Behind Jaiswal Kirana Stores, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Kari Bai @ Tara Shukla W/o Sharad Shukla (D/o Late Ramadhar Sharma) Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Jawalpur, Post Balauda, Tahsil Balauda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 9 - Smt. Rekha Pandey W/o Vijay Pandey (D/o Late Ramadhar Sharma) Aged About 58 Years R/o Behind Mahesh Sweets, Construction Colony, Lane No. 02, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - Annapurna @ Aruna Tripathi W/o Narendra Tripathi (D/o Late Ramadhar Sharma) Aged About 57 Years R/o Mig-37, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Darri, District Korba (C.G.) 11 - Gudiya @ Rajni Tiwari S/o Yogesh Tiwari (D/o Late Ramadhar Sharma) Aged About 55 Years R/o In Front Of 27 Kholi, Divine Pets Salon Lane, House Of Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 12 - Rakesh Sharma S/o Late Ramadhar Sharma Aged About 53 Years 3 R/o Sai Dham Colony, Near J. J. Hospital, Torwa, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 13 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25/03/2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 21.11.2025, passed by the learned 12th District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. A/114/2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioners /plaintiffs under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. They are prosecuting a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction over the suit lands of Schedule A, B and C annexed with the plaint situated at village Dhamni, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur, and village Sambalpuri Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur. The claim of the plaintiffs is that they are entitled for a decree of declaration of their 1/11th share over the suit property of Schedule 4 A and C annexed with the plaint, declaring the will deed dated 22.09.2005, is null and void and also for a declaration that the land alienated by the respective parties shall be adjusted in their respective shares and also for a permanent injunction. He would further submit that the parties are the legal heirs of common ancestor Ramadhar Samdariya and his wife Gajrabai. It is also pleaded in the plaint that Ramdhar Samdariya has executed an unregistered will on 22.09.2005 with respect to the suit property of Schedule B annexed with the plaint. However, Ramadhar was not the title holder of the said property of Schedule B. The suit property of Schedule A annexed with the plaint was inherited by him after death of his father Motiram Samdariya, and it was his ancestral property and except to the property of his own share, he was not competent to execute a will with respect to the property of Schedule-C, which was owned by his sons. The plaintiffs has challenged the execution of the said will deed dated 22.09.2005. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the defendants have filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments and pleaded about various instances of the acquisition of the family properties, family arrangements and partition of the property, they also averred about the execution of the will with respect to the suit property of Schedule B of the plaint. 5. Considering the dispute between the parties and their respective pleadings, the learned trial Court has framed issues with respect 5 to the entailment of the properties by the respective parties, however, there was no issued framed by the learned trial Court with respect to the prayer made in the plaint about declaring the will deed dated 22.09.2005 as null and void, therefore, the plaintiff have filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of C PC for framing the additional issue. The said additional issue is necessary to be framed to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, and in the absence thereof, the parties may prevent for leading their evidence, yet the learned trial Court, instead of framing an additional issue, rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs. He would further submits that no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if such issue was framed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the application may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside by allowing the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 7. The claim in the present writ petition for a direction to the learned trial Court to frame an additional issue with respect to the relief of the plaintiffs for declaring the will deed dated 22.09.2005 as null and void. The learned trial Court has rejected the application on 21.11.2025 on the ground that the proposed issue is in the nature of proof of the will and not in the nature of its relief and therefore, at this stage, there is no necessity to frame additional issue. 8. From perusal of the copy of the plaint annexure P-2, the plaintiffs have prayed the following reliefs in their plaint:- 6 अभⵍय्䵕न⠾ अन⠾ त⑋ष व㔾द♀गण न⠿म⹍ल㈿खᘿ त अतष न⠿ अभⵍय्䵕 रत ह㥈- अ- व㔾द♀गण  प्䵌 े䜰 इस आशय $ घᡋषण  न⠿णय एव㔾' आ्䴺቎二*त पर〿रत $ ज᰾व㔾 न⠿, ቇ䞋े䜰 धे䜰/ तह㥈स/ बⱋद♀र/ ज᰿ज᰾ न⠿बⱋसपर (छ०ग०) एव㔾' ቇ䞋े䜰- सम⹍बⱋपर/ तह㥈स/ न⠿बⱋल㉍ह㥈 ज᰿ज᰾ न⠿बⱋसपर (छ०ग०) े䜰 ቝ嶌6त भⵂ8म⸿े䜰 ज᰾ व㔾द♀ प्䵔  स्䵕 अस8चᩀ/ "अ" एव㔾' "स"  रあप े䜰 ्䵚द♀ቦ暌श?त ह㥈@, पर व㔾द♀गण  1/11 अ'श $ स/े䜰 त स㡍व㔾त⑍व㔾 एव㔾' स㡍व㔾म⸿े䜰त⑍व㔾 ह㥈@। बⱋ- व㔾द♀गण  प्䵌 े䜰 इस आशय $ न⠿णय एव㔾' आ्䴺቎二*त पर〿रत $ ज᰾व㔾 न⠿, रे䜰अधर ससद♀र〿रय ቛ宋र  टरल㈿चᩀत त्䵕ल㈿्䵕त इስ㖋प्䵔 द☿द♀'न⠿त-22/09/2005 अम⸿धर〿रत न⠿व㔾न⠿ह㥈 एव㔾'  टरल㈿चᩀत ह㥈 स शन⡍य एव㔾' न⠿ष㝍्䵚भⵂव㔾/ ह㥈@। स- यह㥈 घᡋषण $ आ्䴺቎二*त पर〿रत $ ज᰾व㔾 न⠿, ज᰿ज᰾स न⠿स/ भⵂ/ प्䵌र ቛ宋र ज᰿ज᰾त/ भⵂ/ भⵂ8म⸿े䜰यJ ज᰿ज᰾स ्䵚र स अ'तर〿रत न⠿य गय ह㥈@, उ भⵂ8म⸿े䜰यJ  अ'तरणत  अ'श े䜰 से䜰यज᰿ज᰾त न⠿य ज᰾य। द♀- ्䵚न⠿तव㔾द♀ े䜰' 01 स 12  न⠿व㔾रあ्䵍 व㔾द♀गण  प्䵌 े䜰 इस आशय  6य/ न⠿षध्䴺 $ आ्䴺቎二*त पर〿रत $ ज᰾व㔾 न⠿, व㔾 न⠿न⡍ह㥈M भⵂ/ पर〿रቝ嶌6न⠿तयJ े䜰 व㔾द♀गण  1/11 अ'श  अ'तर〿रत  र। इ- व㔾द♀गण  ्䵚न⠿तव㔾द♀ 01 स 12 स व㔾द♀ ्䵤य द☿द♀य/ ज᰾य। फ- अन⡍य अतष े䜰/य न⡍ययय ज᰾ उल㈿चᩀत से䜰झᵇ व㔾द♀गण  ्䵚न⠿तव㔾द♀ ्䵅े䜰' 01 स 12 स द☿द♀य/ ज᰾य।" 9. After filing of the written statement, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues;- “1. कᕍय व㔾द♀भⵂ8म⸿े䜰 उभⵂयप्䵌 $ पतS स'पቈ䢌U ह㥈? 7 2. कᕍय व㔾द♀गण व㔾द♀भⵂ8म⸿े䜰 े䜰 स 1/11 अ'श ्䵚*त र  अम⸿धर/ ह㥈? 3. कᕍय व㔾द♀गण व㔾द♀भⵂ8म⸿े䜰 े䜰 अप अ'श  पर〿र्䵚ቌ䲚य े䜰 ्䵚न⠿तव㔾द♀गण  न⠿व㔾रあ्䵍 6य/ न⠿षध्䴺 $ आ्䴺቎二*त ्䵚*त र  अम⸿धर/ ह㥈? 4. कᕍय ्䵚न⠿तव㔾द♀ ्䵅े䜰' 7, 8, 9 एव㔾' 10 व㔾द♀भⵂ8म⸿े䜰 े䜰 स 1/5 अ'श  स㡍व㔾े䜰/ ह㥈? 5. कᕍय उभⵂयप्䵌 व㔾द♀भⵂ8म⸿े䜰 े䜰 स अप- अप अ'श  र〿रकᕍत आम⸿धपत⑍य ्䵚*त र  अम⸿धर/ ह㥈? 6. सह㥈यत एव㔾' व㔾द♀ ्䵤य ?” 10. By way of the application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC, the plaintiffs have requested the framing of the additional issues with respect to their relief clause No.2 and proposed the framing of the following additional issue:- "7- कᕍय त्䵕ल㈿्䵕त इስ㖋प्䵔 द☿द♀'न⠿त- 22/09/2005 अम⸿धर〿रत न⠿व㔾न⠿ह㥈 एव㔾'  टरल㈿चᩀत ह㥈 स शन⡍य एव㔾' न⠿ष㝍्䵚भⵂव㔾/ ह㥈 ?” 11. The learned trial Court is empowered to amend, framed additional issue or strike out the issues as may be necessary for determining the matter in controversy at any time before passing a decree. It is necessary to notice here the provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC which reads as under: “5. Power to amend and strike out issues. (1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in 8 controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.” 12. From perusal of the order impugned, the issues framed by the learned trial Court and the additional issue proposed by the plaintiffs and also the plaint and written statement of the respective parties, though its transpires that the plaintiffs challenge the alleged will dated 22.09.2005 allegedly executed by Ramdhar Samdariya, however, the same is required to be proved by the defendants as they are claiming the execution of the will in their favour. The learned trial Court has observed in its order that at this stage, the proposed issue is not required to be framed as the relevant issues based on the pleadings of the parties have already been framed, appears to be correctly apply the provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC. The learned trial Court can frame the additional issue if it thinks fit that it is necessary to be framed for determining the matters in controversy between the parties. The parties are well aware of the facts of the case, and they may lead their evidence in support of their respective case and if the learned trial Court thinks fit, it is empowered to frame additional issues at any time before passing the decree. 13. At this stage, I do not find any scope for interference in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court to direct the 9 framing of an additional issue. It is for the learned trial Court to consider the issues as has been framed by it and any other issues involved in the case, which is necessary to be framed at an appropriate stage. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok