W.P. (U/A. 227) N0. 652% /2009 PETITIONER DEFENDANT No.1 RESPONDENTS 1] PLAINTIFFS /, Horilal, S/o. Shriram Pandey, aged about 64 years, Retired Bank Offlcer, R/o. Ward No. 19 (Nineteen) Clubpara, Village, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS W/o. Smt. Dharmin Chandrakar, Daulal Chandrakar, aged about 58 years, Daulal Lavesh Chandrakar, S/o. Chandrakar, aged about 34 years, Naresh Chandrakar, S/o. Daulal Chandrakar, aged about 29 years, Ramsheela Chandrakar, W/o. Sunder Chandrakar, aged about 43 ears, Ravikant Chandrakar, S/o. Sunder Chandrakar, aged about 28 years, Gagan Chandrakar, S/o. Sunder Chandrakar, aged about 26 years, Shyarnlal Chandrakar, S/o. Jagnu Ram Chandrakar, aged about 50 years Surendra Chandrakar, S/o. Jagnu Ram Chandrakar, aged about 45 years Tikeshwar Chandrakar, S/o. Jagnu Ram Chandrakar, aged about 41 years Kamleshwar Chandrakar, S/o. Jagnu Ram Chandrakar, aged about 38 years / A11 above R/o. Village Mahasamund, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG) / Smt. Jaya Devi Chandrakar, Wd/o. aged 2] 3] 4] 6] 7] 8] 9] 10] 11] Late Tikeshwar Chandrakar, about 30 years, y @ , 12] Kanha Chandrakar, S/o. Late Tikeshwar Chandrakar, aged about 10 years, 13] Virendra Chandrakar, S/o. Late Tikeshwar Chandrakar, aged about 8 years, /Resp0ndent no. 12 & 13 are minors, through their natural guardian/ mother Smt. Jaya Devi Chandrakar, Wd/o. Late Tikeshwar Chandrakar, aged about 30 years, §espondent no. 11 to 13 are R/o. Kurrnipara, Mahasamund, Tahsil & >District Mahasamund (CG) / 14] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) . . ..Resp0ndent/ defendant no.2 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA fi." l mam, m;W ‘ IA) P(L7/?)No. QL% I 200 a mm (W) $w‘fmm my m>m ’ mm ‘mia'aaqmaaeam .3. Ho’bie Shri Justice MK". ” K 5 n A al 03-1 1 -2009 Shri Rakesh Dubey, counself r the petitioner. Heard on admission. Feeling aggrieved by the orci r dated 05-09-2009 passed by ‘ the tiiai Court in Civil Suit No.46 been preferred by the petitioner. The facts briefly stated as und r: The respondents/plaintiffs tile -a suit for possession and for demolition of super Structure standi g on the disputed land on the allegation that defendant No.1lpetiti ner has encroached upon the land belonging to them. in the said uit, the identity of the property has been disputed by the petiti ner herein. Therefore, the plaintiffsirespondents tiled a petition nder Order 26 Ruie 9'of C.P.C. for demarcation of the suit land. e same was resisted by the petitioner herein on the ground that lier in Civil Suit No.§-AI2007, the demarcation report filed, was dis elieved by the Triai Court and therefore, no fresh demarcation c n be directed which would facilitate the respondents to collect th evidence. for the petitioner and after ‘ perusing the order impugned, in the c nsidered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has not commi ed any illegality in passing the said order warranting interference by his Court under article 227 of ‘ the Constitution of India. It is trite law hat the boundary disputes can 009, the instant petition has After hearing learned couns / - 2 h r WWW ammm only be settled by obtaining demarcation report in this regard. Moreover, if the other demarcation Courts are not precluded to direct fre Rule 9 of C.P.C. In view of the above, the peti liable to be and is hereby dismissed. report was not believed, the sh demarcation under Order 26 tion being devoid ofiis/ubstance Sd/— N.K.Agarwal Judge