SAGAR KUMAR vs ABHISHEK KUMAR CHAND

1

CGHC010048332026
NAFR
Digitally signed by
ALOK SHARMA
Date: 2026.10.29
11:01:14 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 170 of 2026
1 - Sagar Kumar S/o Girdhari Aged About 47 Years Director Subbhash
Vintrade Private Limited Address Fifth Floor, Ozone Tower, Fafadih Raipur
District- Raipur (C.G.) Defendant No. 5)
2 - Subhash Vintrade Private Limited A Company Duly Incorporate As Pe
Provision Of Companies Act, 1956 Havind Its Address Fifth Floor, Ozone
Tower, Fafadih Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) Defendant No. 1)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Abhishek Kumar Chand S/o Late Harbansh Lal Aged About 31 Years R/o
2252, Railway Road Adampur, Tehsil And District- Jalandhar, Punjab Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Dashavindar S/o Late Ratanchand Aged About 63
Years R/o 2252 Railway Road Adampur Tehsil And District- Punjab
2 - Shrimati Sunita Rani Wd/o Late Harbansh Lal Aged About 59 Years R/o
2252, Railway Road Adampur, Tehsil And District- Jalandhar, Punjab Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Dashavindar S/o Late Ratanchand Aged About 63
Years R/o 2252 Railway Road Adampur Tehsil And District- Punjab
3 - Renu Kumari Chand D/o Late Harbansh Lal W/o Amit Kumar Pal Aged
About 36 Years R/o 2252, Railway Road Adampur, Tehsil And District-
Jalandhar, Punjab Through Power Of Attorney Holder Dashavindar S/o Late
Ratanchand Aged About 63 Years R/o 2252 Railway Road Adampur Tehsil
And District- Punjab
4 - Rachna Kumari Malhi @ Rachna Kumari Chand D/o Late Harbansh Lal
W/o Ranbir Malhi Aged About 38 Years R/o 2252, Railway Road Adampur,
Tehsil And District- Jalandhar, Punjab Through Power Of Attorney Holder
Dashavindar S/o Late Ratanchand Aged About 63 Years R/o 2252 Railway
Road Adampur Tehsil And District- Punjab
5 - Subhash Sharma S/o Lokeshwar Prasad Sharma Aged About 58 Years
R/o Lig C- 109, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)
(Defendant No. 2)

2
6 - Ummend Singh S/o Ridhmal Singh Aged About 34 Years At That Time
Director, Of Subhash Vintrade Private Limited Address Fifth Floor, Ozone
Tower Fafadih Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Defendant No. 3 )
7 - Daman Kumar Sarthi S/o Mahesh Kumar Sarthi Aged About 35 Years At
Present Director Of Subbhash Vintrade Private Limited Address Fifth Floor,
Ozone Tower, Fafadih Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) Defendant No. 4)
8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Raipur District- Raipur
Address Office Of Collector, Raipur City, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 to 4 : None, though served.
For State : Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
27/10/2026
1. The respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were defendants before the learned trial
Court, therefore, no notices have been issued to them.
2. Heard.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 06.01.2026
passed by the learned Second District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.
105-A/2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under
Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners
are defendants Nos. 1 and 5 before the learned trial Court, where
respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are prosecuting a suit for declaration of title
and permanent injunction with respect to the suit properties shown in
Schedule 1 annexed with the plaint. There is a dispute with respect to

3
the recitals of the sale deed, which was allegedly executed on
25.09.2013 and sought to be declared null and void, by the original
plaintiff, Harbans Lal, in favour of defendant No. 1/company. The
relevant part of the recitals of the sale deed with respect to the passing
of consideration through cheques is the subject matter of the dispute,
as there are differences between the sale deed filed by the plaintiffs in
support of their claim as Ex. P/2 and the sale deed that the present
petitioners seek to file in the suit, which they have obtained from the
Office of the District Registrar and also from Punjab National Bank,
with which the property was mortgaged. He would further submit that
the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the
petitioners on the ground that a copy of the sale deed has already
been filed by the plaintiffs as Ex. P/2 and there is no need to file
another copy of the same sale deed in the case. He would further
submit that the sale deed has been filed by the plaintiffs before the
learned trial Court, but, in view of the differences in the recitals of the
sale deed, the documents sought to be filed by the petitioners are very
relevant for the just decision of the case. He would further submit that
no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs, as they have every right
to cross-examine the defendants' witnesses and to avail themselves of
the remedy to prove their case in accordance with law. Therefore, the
application filed by the petitioners may be allowed and the impugned
order may be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1
opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners
and would submit that the same sale deed has been filed by the
plaintiff after obtaining its certified copy from the Office of the Registrar,

4
and the certified copy was issued on the basis of its original copy kept
in the Office of the Registrar. The defendants have tried to raise a
dispute by filing another copy of the sale deed, which is not relevant to
the controversy between the parties and the issues involved in the suit.
The defendants have cross-examined the plaintiff's witness, and the
plaintiff's evidence has been closed, and the case has been fixed for
recording the defendants' evidence. The learned trial Court has rightly
considered that the copy of the sale deed has already been filed by the
plaintiff and there is no need to file another copy of the same.
Therefore, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
7. From a perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, it
transpires that the plaintiff relied upon the document Ex. P/2, which is
annexed to the petition at page 37, and the document which is sought
to be filed by the defendants is annexed to the petition from page No.
52 onwards. The relevant parts of the recitals, which are the subject
matter of the dispute, are at pages Nos. 43 and 60, respectively. It is
relevant to note that both these recitals read as under:-
‘ fodz; izfrQy dh laiw.kZ jkf’k 4]97]16]000@& :i;s v{kjh pkj djksM+ lR;kUos yk[k
lksyg :i;s fodzsrk us dzsrk ls vkil esa fuEukuqlkj izkIr fd;k ftldh vfHkLohd`fr
fodzsrk ,rn~ }kjk iznku djrk gSA vc bl lkSns ls lacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh jkf’k ysuk ‘ks”k
ugh gSA
dza jkf’k uxn@psd fnukad cSad
1 99]43]200@& 152944 25-11-13 ih-,u-ch
2 99]43]200@& 152945 25-12-13 ih-,u-ch
3 99]43]200@& 152946 25-01-14 ih-,u-ch
4 99]43]200@& 152947 25-02-14 ih-,u-ch
5 99]43]200@& 152948 25-03-14 ih-,u-ch

5
dqy 4]97]16]000@& :i;s v{kjh pkj djksM+ lUR;kUcs yk[k lksyg :i;s
;g fd bl fodz;i= ds iath;u dk leLr [kpZ tSls ( eqnzkad ‘kqYd ,oa iath;u ‘kqYd )
fodzsrk }kjk ogu fd;k x;k gSA
8. fodz; izfrQy dh laiw.kZ jkf’k 4]97]16]000@& :i;s v{kjh pkj djksM+ lUR;kUos yk[k
lksyg :i;s fodzsrk us dzsrk ls vkil esa fuEukuqlkj izkIr fd;k ftldh vfHkLohd`fr
fodzsrk ,rn~ }kjk iznku djrk gSA vc bl lkSns ls lacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh jkf’k ysuk ‘ks”k
ugh gSA
dza jkf’k uxn@psd fnukad cSad
1 99]43]200@& 152944 25-11-13 ih-,u-ch
2 99]43]200@& 152945 25-12-13 ih-,u-ch
3 99]43]200@& 152946 25-01-14 ih-,u-ch
4 99]43]200@& 152947 25-02-14 ih-,u-ch
5 99]43]200@& 152948 25-03-14 ih-,u-ch
IksLV MsVsM gksus ds ckotwn vkgj.k iwoZ dzsrk dh lgefr vfuok;Z gSA psd ckmal gksus
ij dzsrk dk HkwLokeh gd dk;e jgsxkA bl ckcr~ dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugh dh
tk,xhA
dqy 4]97]16]000@& :i;s v{kjh pkj djksM+ lUR;kUcs yk[k lksyg :i;s
(
;g fd bl fodz;i= ds iath;u dk leLr [kpZ tSls eqnzkad ‘kqYd ,oa iath;u
‘kqYd ) fodzsrk }kjk ogu fd;k x;k gSA
9. The parties could not dispute that these recitals form part of the same
sale deed, which was executed on 25.09.2013. However, a clear
distinction has emerged with respect to the recitals made in the same
sale deed. The recital available at page No. 43 forms part of the sale
deed, Ex. P/2, which has been filed by the plaintiff before the learned
trial Court. Since the defendants are disputing the recitals of the sale
deed filed by the plaintiff and seek to produce another copy of the sale
deed containing the recital available at page No. 60, they cannot be
prevented from filing the same in the suit in support of their claim.

6
10. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned trial
Court has considered that the execution of the sale deed is admitted by
both parties. However, the discrepancies have also been observed in
the impugned order dated 06.01.2026, and the learned trial Court has
concluded that since the execution of the document is admitted, it is
not required to be proved further, and the admitted document is already
on record. This finding, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be
perverse, in view of the fact that the defendants are raising a dispute
with respect to another recital of the same sale deed.
11. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the defendants
are entitled to place on record the documents in their support, which
they sought to produce along with the application under Order 8 Rule
1(3) of the CPC.
12. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the
learned trial Court is set aside. The application filed by the petitioners
under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC is allowed, and the documents
filed along with the said application are directed to be taken on record.
13. The plaintiff is entitled to avail the remedies available to him with
respect to the subject document sought to be produced by the
petitioners before the learned trial Court during the proceedings of the
suit.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed .
15. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Sd/-
( Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Alok