C(2\973”L_ \ IN TILE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (c) No. é3/9 oF 2009 TPETITIONERs qéaghvendm Dhar Diwan, so'n of (Plaim‘iff) LaTe Raghuveer' Dhur DivT/an, aged abouf 60 years, residenf of 194, Street No.28, Sundar Nagar', Roipur (Q6) g § / 3 V, RESPONDENTS : 1.Dipak Jain, son of Dr. M.L. Jain, Defendam‘s) aged abouT 32 years, residen‘r of Sunder Nagar‘l Raipur (CG). 2.5m‘r. Préh’bha Jain, aged abouf 26 years, wife of Shri Dipak Jain, residenf of Sunder Nagar, Raipur‘. 3,Navdip Jain, son of shri Gyanchand Jain, aged abouf 29V years, residem‘ of Sundar Nagar, Raipur, as shown in The couri beiow: bu’r presenfiy residing or carrying >on business at Ply Palace, Ghasidas Plaza, Aamapara, Raipur (CG) / . " 4.Mukesh Sha-rma, son of S.hri Uday Sharma, aged abouf 34 years, residenf of Adivasi Colony, Kushaipur, Raipur (CG) (bu’r ' presen‘rly C/o Uday Builders, Kushalpur, Raipur). W ( A WW, WEI {a8 Fig? mmwcwwgli m a“ W {Wu} mmWqm ' Wmmhwm §§afm37né¥r S.B. Hon’bie Shri Justice N.K. Atlarwa! 04-1 1 -2009 Shri B.P. Sharma, counsei fur the petitioner. Heard onadmission. , I The instant writ petition is di‘ ected against the arder dated 15- 10-2009 passed'by Thirteenth Ci ii Judge, Class-ii, Raipur in Civil Suit No.162-A/2009 whereby a d whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner under rater 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. has been dismissed. The facts briefly stated as milder: The petitioner/plaintiff ins tuted a suit seeking relief of permanent restraining the defenda ts/respondents from interfering in ' their possession over the suit prd'perty which is plot No.101, area 2800 Sq.ft. The respondents flied their written statement and submitted that respondents No. 1 5E 2 have purchased land which is part of Khasra No 1175/4 (Sheet) 86 plot area 1110 sq ft. and srnce purchase they are In its peaceful possession The piaintifflpetitroner fled an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of C P C for demarcation of the land the application was rejected by holding that the petitioner/plaintiff has not mentioned in the plaint the Khasra number of plot,No.101. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the application because the petitioner has given the details of land including the Khasra number $,_t.- i r i v z ._r.;»«~.$p.- «My w .(>. cc) Nb. 6‘3J% _ M2109 3 , .7 Mqaa: (mu) W Em féii‘av: 35"“ m m mm ma m mwefe’é’fm §Kaifaum in his application (Annexure P-9) therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the appiica ‘on. Having heard learned cou sel for the petitioner and having perused the record, in the opini n of this Court, the learned trial Court has not committed any illeg lity leading to manifest injustice to the petitioner in rejecting the appli ation (Annexure P—9) inasmuch as the plaintiff has not mentioned Kh sra number of the disputed plot in the plaint nor he has filed any d cument showing his title over the .land bearing khasra number (Annexur P~9). In vies of the above, I do n tfmd any scope for interference in Kvr However, if any applicatiort is filed seeking demarcation after .suitably amending the plaint and iiling relevant documents then, the trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law on its own merits witht being influenced bylthis order Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge s\ mentioned in the application the order impugned in exercisin extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution oft dia and the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. i i e ou