Z$v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (2271 no. 4740 of 2011 1. Raj Kamal PatCI Son of late Shn' PLAINTIFF Shatrughan Patel, aged about 55 years, Occupau'on Service, 2. Prabhat Kamal Patel, Son of late Shri Shatrughan Patel, aged. about 51 years, Occupation Business, 3. Shamd Kamal Patel, Son of late Shn' Shatrughan Patel, aged about 45 years, Occupation Business All R/o Darogapaxa, Ward No. 16, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Ajit Ram Patel, Son of Nilambar - Patel, aged 50 yeas, R/o Chhote Atarmuda, Rajgarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.). 2. Kamal Chhadimali, Son r of Narayan Chhadimali, aged about 45 yeals, Occupation Lawyer, House No. MIG 18, Lochan Nagar Raigarh (C.G.). 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector Raigarh (C.G.). 4. Bahadur Singh, Son of Jagmohan, aged about 5O years, Chhote Atarmuda, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate with Shri Harsh Mahant, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 1, 2 8s 4 not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 19/08/201 1) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 29/7/2011 passed by 3‘d Civil Judge. Class—II, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 23—A/ 2O 10 whereby learned wy. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS [DEFENDANW] 22 3rd Civil Judge, Class-II, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) has dismissed the application for local inspecu‘on by appointing Commissioner under Older 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short ‘the Code’). Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate with Shri Harsh Mahant, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 3 am heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per claim of petitioners] plaintid‘s, respondents has encroached the land owned and possessed by peu'n'oners bearing Kh. Nos. 43/ 1 65 44/ 1 although respondents No. 1 85 2 has not dnectly admitted the aforesaid possession and the fact that they am owner of adjoining plot but their pleading reveal that they are in possessbn their land adjoining to the land of the petitioners and have encmached the land of petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioneis further submits that Without demarcation by appointing Revenue Ohicer as a Commissioner ehech've decree and substantial jusu‘ce would not be possible. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State] respondent No. 3 opposed the petition. Order impngned, copy of the plaint, copy of application and reply perused. As per allegation made in plaint virtually plaintitls have not specified the disputed land to enable the Court for grandng any decree or to execute such decree. In absence of specihcation of the disputed land en‘ective decree would not be possible mentioning the fact that plaint area encroached has been shown in red colour is not description of the land. 9W Order impugned and copy of the plajnt xeveal that Without demarcation by Revenue Omcer by appointing Commissioncr eEcctivc decree would not be passed. At this stage observance of procedural law would only be futile exercise. Consequently, peu‘u‘on is disposed of with following observations:- Plainu'ns/pcn‘tioners shall specify the disputed property in terms of Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code by necessaxy amendment Within 15 days and thereafter if peddoners dles application for local inspecn'on by appointing Commissioner then same shall be disposed of Without inlluenced by its previous order or this order in the light of aforesaid observatioh relating to necessity of demarcation by appointing Commissioner. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Certified copy as per rules.