Karmen S/o Late Shadur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Sarnapara Navki, P.S. and v. 1- Arjun S/o Kandru Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Navapara, Laduwa, P.S. and
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:9314 HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WP227 No. 173 of 2025 Karmen S/o Late Shadur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Sarnapara Navki, P.S. and Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1- Arjun S/o Kandru Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Navapara, Laduwa, P.S. and Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 2 - Urmila Minj W/o Badri Prasad Tigga Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Sargavan, P.S. and Tahsil- Shankargarn, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 3 - Halaknath S/o Ramcharan Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Pakdadi, P.S. and Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 4- State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj C.G. 5- Lalita W/o Vinod Aged About 25 Years D/o Sukhram, R/o Village - Bariyo, P.S. and Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 6- Radha D/o Dhanesh Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Nawki Sarnapara, P.S. and Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 7- Kalawati D/o Dhanesh Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Their Guardian Res. No. 10 - Dhanesh, R/o Village- Nawki Sarnapara, P.S. and Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 8- Raju S/o Dhanesh Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Guardian Res. No. 10 - Dhanesh, R/o Village- Nawki Sarnapara, P.S. and Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj C.G. -2- 9- Sonsai S/o Dhanesh Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Their Guardian Res. No. 10- Dhanesh, R/o Village- Nawki Sarnapara, P.S. and Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 10- Dhanesh, S/o Dilsai Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Nawki Sarnapara, P.S. and Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 11- Jagmen W/o Mangal Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Nawki Sarnapara, P.S. and Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.02.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Civil Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petitioner to make the necessary amendment sought by him in the para 3 and 11 of the plaint by the application of order 6 and rule 17 of the CPC. 10.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 That, the cost of the petition may also be grant.” 2) The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition against the order dated 29.01.2025, passed by the learned Additional Judge to learned Civil Judge Class-I, Senior -3- Division, Ramanujganj, Place Rajpur, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj in Civil Suit No. 17A/2016, whereby an application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has partly been allowed. 3) Facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale deed on 09.05.2016 along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. B. In the civil suit, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and proposed the correction of certain typographical mistakes. In para-5, the plaintiff proposed an amendment that Karmen Gond was residing along with the plaintiff, who is the son-in-law (Damad-Gharjihan) according to prevailing customs in the Gond community. In para-6, the plaintiff proposed an amendment that defendant No.1-Arjun representing himself a son of a younger brother recorded his name in the revenue records. C. It is also pleaded that the late Sahadur never put his thumb impression as he used to sign documents and fraudulently, the name of defendant No.1 was entered into the revenue records and they never remained in the possession of the suit property. D. Defendant No.2 filed a reply and denied the averments. It was stated that the application for amendment has been moved when the case is fixed for final arguments. E. The learned trial Court vide order dated 29.01.2025 partly allowed the application for amendment and rejected the application with regard to the amendment proposed in para-5 and 6 on the ground that by way of the proposed amendment, -4- the plaintiff has not elaborated the pleadings made in the plaint and the application has been moved at a belated stage. It is also held that the amendment proposed by the plaintiff comes within the exception of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the learned trial Court committed an error of law while partly allowing the application for amendment. He would contend that the proposed amendment, particularly in paras 5 & 6 did not change the nature of the suit. Therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the said application. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7) It appears that the plaintiff moved an application for amendment when the case was set for final arguments. The learned trial court, taking a liberal approach, allowed the amendment with regard to typographical mistakes. However, the proposed amendment regarding custom and the entry of the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records was rejected. 8) In the present case, the application for amendment was moved at a belated stage, particularly when the case was fixed for final arguments. The pleadings made in paragraphs 5 and 6 were not originally included in the plaint. The fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiff from the inception, but no steps were taken before the commencement of the trial. The learned trial court, taking a liberal approach, partly allowed the amendment application. -5- 9) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Sd/- NADIM