.BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(227)No. SSEX I201o mNQiE EEwgg‘g gymt‘ Kumud Bai w/o Roshan Lal, aged about 42 years, caste Darji, resident of Bramhapara, Ambikaur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, (CG) VSUS ER PETITIONER DEFENDANT N0. 1 RESPONDENTS :1i Kedarnath S/O Late’ Roopchand, Age 6O Years, Caste — Darji, Occupation — Agriculture/Labour, Resident Of Bramhapara, Ambikaur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, (09.) PLAINTIFF Smt. Kalawati w/o Late Mayaram, aged about 55 years, r/o Bramhapara, Ambikaur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District S urguja, (C.Gi) Vishwanath s/o Late Jangsai, aged about 38 years, Caste — Darji. Sitaram s/o Late Jangsai, aged about 34 years, Caste '— Darji, No. 3 and 4 r/o Satipara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Peetu s/o Late Sudama, aged about 26 years, Caste — Darji Bhanta s/o Late Sudama, aged about 24 years, Caste — Darji. " Not 5 and 6, both r/o Mathpara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 7. The State of Chhattisgarh, Coliector, Surguja, Ambikapuri DEFENDANTS through WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (3) v z evidence. é umar Mishra Writ Petition (2272 No. 5379/2010 R : PETITIONE Smt. Kumud Bai Versus Aggearance: : Kedarnath and others Shn‘ AK Prasad, counse \ RESPONDENTS Shu' onefor Ajit Singh, respondents Panel No.1 La 1 for to 6. the petitioner, WRIT PETITION CONSTITUTION UNDER OF ARTICLE INDIA 227 OF THE wyer for respondent No.7. Learned tria! coult has rejectec} [the application on the ground e petitioner is trying to use the process of court for collecting ilythat t11 l l C : S ‘ shant K RD R ‘ {4) This court has gone through the documents annexed with thc writ petition and is satisfied that the trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application at this stage. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fact as to whether any construction has been raised/available on the suit land can only be decided by issuance of commission and that the learned trial court should have issued commission on this aspect. (6) From the impugned order, it would appear that the plaintiff has not yet adduced its evidence. Question regarding valuation is always a mixed question of law and fact, therefore it is directed that the petitioner may move an application under Order 26 Rule 9 afresh after the evidence of parties is over and it is still felt that the issuance of commission would be required for obtaining the correct valuation of the construction made on the suit land or for any other purpose. (7) With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. l Sdl— l ' "" “i W~ri Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge