Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Kalpana Shrivastava vs Bhanu Dewangan on 11 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.04.16
17:42:33 +0530
2025:CGHC:16987
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR No. 92 of 2025
Smt. Kalpana Shrivastava W/o Shri Narendra Kumar
Shrivastava Aged About 62 Years R/o Sector-10 Quarter
No. 12 C, Street No. 12, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
1. Bhanu Dewangan S/o Plaintiff Chandrabhan Dewangan
Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 431, Mukut Nagar,
Titurdih, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh At
Present R/o Junior Engineer Railway Zone Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Mr. R. K. Gomasta, Advocate
For State : Mr. Shailesh Puria, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment On Board
11/04/2025
1. This civil revision has been filed by the applicant under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the
2
order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the First Civil Judge
Class-I, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit Class A/104/2017,
whereby, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by
the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1/plaintiff
filed a Civil Suit before the trial Court for declaration of title
and injunction against the applicant/defendant No.1 in
respect of the land bearing Khasra No.23/20 measuring
2400 square feet situated at Ghandhinagar, Risali Ward
No.63, P.H. No.19/22, Bhilai, District Durg pleading that he
had purchased the said land from Sarvesh Malik by
registered sale deed on 21.09.2025 and taken possession
from the seller. However, the applicant/defendant No.1
purchased the said land from Leelavati Verma on
23.07.2008 and illegally possessed over the suit land.
Subsequently, demarcation was conducted wherein it was
found that on 8.6.2012, an application under Section 129 of
the Land Revenue Code was moved by the applicant before
the Tehsildar which was registered as Case No. 421/A-
12/2012-13; notice was issued to the respondent No.1 and
he participated in the proceeding, and thereafter, order of
demarcation was passed by the Tehsildar. The demarcation
was carried out by the Revenue Inspector on 19.9.2013 and
the applicant was found in possession of land which he had
3
purchased through a registered sale-deed. The respondent
No.1 preferred a revision before the Additional Collector,
Durg along with an application for condonation of delay and
same was allowed vide order dated 8.8.2014 on the ground
that while carrying out the second demarcation, the
petitioner was not heard though he had sufficient
documents and thus, the learned Additional Collector set
aside the order passed by the Tehsildar and remitted back
the matter to Tehsildar to pass fresh order after affording
opportunity of hearing.
3. The applicant preferred a revision before the Board of
Revenue and vide order dated 28.1.2017, the order passed
by the Collector has been set aside and the order passed by
the Tehsildar has been restored on the ground that while
carrying out demarcation, the officer has demarcated the
land of applicant on the basis of boundaries mentioned in
the registered sale-deed and same is evident from order
dated 21.6.2013, passed by the Tehsildar. Against the order
passed by the Board of Revenue dated 28.01.2017, the
respondent no.1 preferred a writ petition (WP227 No.
478/2017) before this High Court which dismissed vide
order dated 17.02.2013 holding that the proceeding as well
as the demarcation was carried out in accordance with law.
Thereafter, the applicant filed the application under Order 7
4
& Rule 11 of CPC which was dismissed by the Trial Court
vide impugned order dated 22.02.2025 against which the
present revision has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned
trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prays for
setting aside of the said order.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would
support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the
revision.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. In the order in question dated 22.02.2025, three applications
of the plaintiff; i) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated
11.05.2017, ii) under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC dated
06.07.2019 & under Order 14 Rule 5 were allowed whereas
one application under Order 26 Rule 9, Order 39 Rule 7 of
CPC was rejected and the application of defendant No.1 filed
under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was rejected. Before passing
the impugned order, the direction of the High Court
regarding illegal possession has been complied with and
additional issues have also been framed regarding illegal
possession.
5
8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court does not find any jurisdictional
illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned
order by the trial Court, to enteretain the instant Civil
Revision.
9. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case,
the instant Revision is hereby dismissed at motion stage
itself.
Sd/-
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
JUDGE
Khatai
[ad_1]
Source link