HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS Writ Petition (2271 No. 5059 of 2009 Itwari Lal Kachhwaha S/o Babulal Kachhwaha, (died), through his legal heirs, 1. Ram Bai widow of Itwari Lal, aged about 80 years, R/o In front of C.M.D. College Link Road Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.a Amrit Lal S/o late Itwari Lal, aged about 63 years, 1.b Deep Chand S/o late Itwari Lal, aged about 56 years, 1.c Shankar Lal S/o late Itwari Lal, aged about 53 years 1.d Smt. ShakuntalaW/o lateAshok kumar 1.e Vikas Kumar S/o late Ashok Kumar, aged about 19years 1.f Ku. Dimfi D/o late Ashok Kumar, aged about 17 years, through her natural guardian mother Smt. Shakuntala W/o late Ashok Kumar, All 1.a to 1.f residence of near Ajit Hotel, Telipara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.g Santosh Kumar Kachhuwaha S/o late Itwari Lal, aged 41 years, (Will Holder) 2.a Kanchan Kacchuwaha D/o Durga Prasad, aged about 33 years 2.b Dinesh Kachhuwaha S/o Durga Prasad, aged about 29 years 2.c Nilesh Kacchuwaha S/o Durga Prasad, aged about 27 years 2.d Munni Kachhuwaha D/o Durga Prasad, aged about 31 years 2.e Manju Kachhuwaha D/o Durga Prasad, aged about 25 years 2.f Shail Kachhuwaha D/o Durga Prasad, aged about 23 years 2.g Smt. Parvati Devi D/o late Itwari Lal, aged about 57 years, W/o Gulab Chand All 1.g to 2.g R/o Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 DEFENDANTS Ram Hridaya Shukla S/o Videshi Prasad Shukla, aged about 75 years, R/o Village- Sirgitti, Kirti Nagar, Tahsil- Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Collector, Bilaspur,District- Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P. (227)No. 5059 of 2009 Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Appearance : Mr. F.S. Khare, counselforthe petitioners/plaintiffs. ORAL ORDER (08.09.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of order dated 25.9.2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2007 by the Third Civil Judge, Class-11, Bilaspur, whereby, an apptication filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for demarcation of the suit land has been dismissed by the said Court. A perusal of the impugned order as also the contents of the plaint would show that the plaintiffs' suit was based on a previous demarcation report and the plaintiffs had claimed vacant possessions of 25 decimal land showing to be in possession of defendant Ram Hridaya. When there was already a report of demarcation conducted on the instance of the plaintiffs, the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs for conducting another demarcation under Order 26 Rule 9 ofthe C.P.C. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. The Writ Petition has no merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti