Chattisgarh High Court
Rajbati vs Lilabai on 4 January, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 749 of 2021
1. Rajbati W/o Late Mekal, Aged About 75 Years,
2. Devkunwar @ Anuradha, D/o Late Mekal, Aged About 55 Years,
Both are Present R/o. Mhaween Nagar, New Puraina Shubham Nagar, Qt. No. Z-
1 (Sai Bihar), Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Lilabai D/o. Late Mekal (W/o. Ramprasad), Aged About 66 Years R/o
Village Gurur, Tehsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh
2. Teminbai, D/o Late Mekal (W/o. Nakul), Aged About 64 Years R/o Village
Ramtara, Tehsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
3. Rishi Kumar, S/o Late Mekal Aged About 60 Years Present R/o. Village
Sanod, Tehsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
4. Jagritibai, W/o Khilawanram, Aged About 37 Years R/o Sonaidongri,
Tehsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
5. Satrupabai, W/o. Salikram, Aged About 35 Years R/o Danitola (Dhamtari),
Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
6. Dindayal, S/o Topi, Aged About 58 Years R/o Kanwar, Tehsil Gurur,
District Balod Chhattisgarh.
7. Roopsingh D/o Mahesh, Aged About 70 Years W/o. Milau, R/o. Gokulpur
Nayapara Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
8. Milapbai, W/o. Prabhu, Aged About 65 Years R/o. Amdi, Tehsil And
District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
9. Pyarelal, S/o Sukhdev, Aged About 67 Years R/o. Kanwar, Tehsil Gurur,
District Balod Chhattisgarh.
10. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Balod, District Balod
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 12 : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board By 04/01/2022
1. This petition has been preferred under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25/10/2021 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class 1 in civil suit No. 22A/2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC has been partly allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition and possession over the suit property. The petitioners /defendants moved an application for framing of additional issues about the nature of property whether it is property of plantiff and defendant and what will be the share of the plaintiff and the defendants in the suit property.
3. Counsel for the petitioner summits that the trial court has wrongly rejected the order in a mechanical manner. So, it is prayed that the application may be allowed
4. I have hard counsel for the petitioner and persued the documents annexed with the petition.
5. Having considered the issues framed by the trial court, copy of the plaint, written statement and also considering the impugned order in which the trial court has rightly observed that there is no need to frame additional issue and some partial correction was made, and accordingly the petitioners' application was disposed of which in the opinion of this Court does not call for any interference.
6. In Smt.Kamalakshi and others v. Sri Manappa Gowda and others, 2000 AIHC 3256 , wherein it was held that settlement of issues is only the discretion of the trial Court and it cannot be interfered with by the high Court in exercising of its power by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. In Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003 (6) SCC 675, in para-39, it is held as follows:
"39. Though we have tried to lay down broad principles and working rules, the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a strait-jacket formula or rigid rules. Not less than often, the High Court would be faced with dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings there is bound to be delay in termination of proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the moment may earn immunity from correction. The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where 'a stitch in time would save nine'. At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge."
8. So, in view of the above, this petition has no substance and is liable to be and is hereby dismised accordingly.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge rahul