RANDHIR SINGH KHANUJA Vs. CHETNA MALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/defendant No. 8 has filed this civil revision against the order dtd. 7/2/2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the First Civil Judge Class-II Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. S-62-A/2022 by which the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the count that the provisions of Sec. 257 of the Land Revenue Code (for short,. 'the Code') are not attracted to the facts of the present case as in the revenue records, the name of plaintiff -Chetna Malu is recorded. This order is being assailed by the petitioner in this Civil Revision.

(2.) The facts of the case as projected by the petitioner in Civil Revision are that the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff has filed a Civil sSit No. S-62-A/2022 before the Civil Judge Class II Mahasamund, District Mahasamund for declaration of title, permanent injunction and recovery of possession after demolition of ongoing construction in the suit property and also grant vacant possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 1237/17/1 area 0.018 hectare and Khasra No. 1237/17/2 area measuring 375 sq.ft situated at Ashram Road, Vasant Colony Tehsil Mahasamund to the plaintiff. The brief plaint averments are that the suit property is diverted plot and recorded in the name of the plaintiff in revenue records. It is also case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Khasra No. 1237/17/1 was purchased through registered sale deed 24/10/2019 from Vinod Kumar Jain and she has taken possession. The suit property bearing Khasra No. 1237/17/2 has been purchased from seller Vinod Kumar Jain Agro Exim Pvt. Limited on 11/6/2020. Other property of the plaintiff and her husband was also there which is not in dispute. Plaint averment further shows that the defendant No. 8/ present petitioner has illegally taken possession two months prior on the suit property measuring 1740 sq.ft and started illegal construction. Defendant No. 8 is continuing the illegal construction on the suit property. It is also case of the plaintiff that the grassland 6 ft. wide and 91.56 ft long area of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1238/15/1 and 1238/15/2 total area 3000 sq.ft. belongs defendant No. 9 and 10 which is not in dispute.

(3.) On these pleadings, the plaintiff has prayed for declaration that the defendant No. 8 who on the strength of defendant No. 1 to 6 is doing illegal construction on the suit property of the plaintiff as such the defendant No. 1 to 8 may be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the suit property.