1 2026:CGHC:2347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1149 of 2025 1 - Jugal Kishore Agrawal S/o Lt. Shri Jiwanram Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Sariya, Tehsil- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pushpa Devi Rateriya W/o Sanjay Rateriya Aged About 65 Years R/o Subhash Chowk, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Kalwati Agrawal W/o Lt. Shri Jiwanram Agrawal Aged About 89 Years R/o Village- Sariya, Tehsil- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) Current R/o Subhash Chowk, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Collector District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Adv For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Adv For respondent No.3/ State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 14/01/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh in Civil Suit No. A/ 6/ 2019 by which the application of the petitioner/plaintiff filed under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit before the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge Sarangarh seeking a declaration of title. He further submits that in order to prove the pleadings, the 2 plaintiff/petitioner filed two applications under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC in order to examine his family member namely Gopal Prasad Agrawal aged about 75 years and Gayatri Devi Agrawal aged about 81 years. As the witnesses are aged persons suffering from ailments and are unable to appear in person before the learned trial Court for the recording of evidence, thus the applications ought to have been allowed by learned trial Court. However, by the impugned order, the same has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on a proper appreciation of evidence, and thus do not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. From the impugned order it appears that the petitioner/plaintiff in his application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC wanted to examine one family member namely Gopal Prasad Agrawal aged about 75 years on commission. This apart, another application for examination of Gayatri Devi Agrawal aged about 81 years on commission, one of the family members of the petitioner was also filed. The order further reflects that as per the application the witnesses sought to be examined on commission are in their advanced age and also suffering from various ailments. The reply appears to have been filed indicating that the said witnesses were not mentioned in the list of the witnesses to be examined and earlier an application for examining the witnesses on commission was already rejected and the application is filed to prolong the civil suit. Learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties in the impugned judgment observed that the issues were framed on 05.07.2022 and during this period of three years, the petitioner could have filed the application to examine the witnesses on commission which he failed to do. It has been further observed that despite repeated directions right from 01.07.2025, the affidavit of the plaintiff was filed only on 23.08.2025. It is also reflected from the impugned order that the suit was heard on day-to-day basis as there is a direction of the High Court to decide the case expeditiously. The learned trial Court also observed 3 that the medical document appended with the application does not disclose that the witness is suffering any fatal disease rendering him unable to make any physical activity because no medical certificate under the seal and signature of a medical practitioner has been filed. Considering all these grounds, learned trial Court has dismissed the said application. It is pertinent to mention here that the application for examination of another witness on commission namely Gayatri Devi Agrawal was also rejected by the trial Court on the same ground. 6. The learned trial Court, after an assessment of the material on record and considering the argument advanced, gave a categorical finding which appears to be just, based on proper appreciation of material and does not require any interference by this Court, therefore, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to keep his witness present which he intended to examine before the learned trial Court in person on the next date fixed for evidence. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2026.01.16 17:20:05 +0530