Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22118 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 477 of 2025 ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.05.20 17:34:54 +0530 1 - Pushpa Bai D/o Late Dayaram Aged About 45 Years R/o Rampur, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Hemlata Shrivas D/o Late Dayaram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Charmar, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Umashankar Shrivas S/o Late Dayaram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Charmar, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Khuleshwar Shrivas S/o Late Dayaram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Charmar, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Neera Bai D/o Late Dayaram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Charmar, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Sita Shrivas D/o Late Dayaram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Charmar, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 7 - Vinod Kumar Shrivas S/o Late Dayaram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Charmar, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 8 - Shyam Bai W/o Late Dayaram Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Charmar, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 9 - Savitri Bai Shrivas D/o Late Dayaram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sakreli, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - Krishni Bai D/o Late Budhram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Rampur, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs) 2 - Uma Bai D/o Late Budhram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Rampur, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 3 - Geetaprasad S/o Late Budhram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Rampur, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - Mohan Prasad S/o Late Budhram Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Rampur, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Kushal Prasad S/o Late Budhram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Rampur, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Bhagwati Bai W/o Late Budhram Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Rampur, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh 7 - Tahsildar Kartala Tahsil Office Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Defendants No. 10) 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Defendants No. 11) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Ahmad Hussain, Advocate along with Mr. Nasimudding Ansari, and Mr. Riyazudding Sheikh, For State/Respondents : Mr. Ajeet Singh, G.A. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 20.05.2025 1) Heard on Admission. 2) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed. 3 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit and includes properties allegedly belonging to the defendants i.e. petitioners, which should not be made subject-matter of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the amendment was filed belatedly and hence, the trial Court has committed an error of law in allowing the said application. 4) Learned counsel for the State submits that the dispute is purely between the plaintiffs and the defendants and the State has no substantial interest. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6) The civil suits for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the properties which are described in Paragraph -1 of the plaint which are as under:- “It is stated that the defendants Nos.1 to 9 have lands situated in village Charmar, P.H. No. 35, Tehsil Kurkha, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), with the following khasra numbers and areas: Khasra No. 1/1, area 0.9140 hectares, Khasra No. 815, area 0.5670 hectares, Khasra No. 646/1, area 0.5260 hectares, Khasra No. 829, area 0.1210 hectares, Khasra No. 877, area 0.1050 hectares, Khasra No. 1050, area 0.3240 hectares, Khasra No. 1093, area 0.2910 hectares, Khasra No. 1147, area 0.1010 hectares, Khasra No. 1149/2, including 1150 and 1154/2, area 0.1900 hectares, Khasra No. 1156, area 0.4130 hectares, Khasra No. 1170, area 0.1010 hectares, Khasra No. 1173, area 0.3320 hectares, Khasra No. 1193/1, area 0.2260 hectares. Total khasra numbers: 14. Total area: 4.7050 hectares. This land is ancestral property of both parties” 4 7) Stating it to be the ancestral property and relief and prayer was made in the plaint which are herein under:- “a. A declaration be made that the plaintiffs are co- sharers and have a share in the suit property, and that they have ownership and possession of their share. b. The orders dated 31/03/2022 and 30/11/2022 passed by the revenue courts, namely the Tehsildar, Kartala, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Korba, be declared null and void, and the plaintiffs' names be directed to be recorded in the revenue records. c. A permanent injunction be issued restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' ownership and possession of the suit property and from transferring it in any manner. d. The plaintiffs be awarded costs of the suit and other incidental expenses from the defendants, jointly and severally. e. Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court be granted to the plaintiffs.” 8) Thereafter, an application for amendment was filed by which some other properties were required to be prayed and to be added after paragraph- 1(a) is proposed amendment is reproduced herein-below. “1(a). It is stated that the land situated in village Charmar, with the following details:- Khasra No. 1183/3, area 0.032 hectares, Khasra No. 1184, area 0.283 hectares, Khasra No. 1190/01, area 1.302 hectares, Khasra No. 1190/2, area 0.008 hectares, Khasra No. 1203/2. Total Khasra numbers: 04 which are part of the suit property/land in dispute.” 9) The learned Trial Court vide its impugned order, discussed the pleadings, the reply has been submitted by the respondents and observed that the case is at its preliminary stage whereas the written statement has already been filed. The amendment is prayed for adding additional suit property 5 which appears to be essential for deciding the case. It is further observed that on account of delay, the application may be allowed on payment of cost. Therefore, the application was allowed after the payment of Rs.500/-. A pointed query was raised to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the Trial Court has begun or not? He fairly submits that trial has not begun. 10) On perusal of the impugned order, no error of law or jurisdictional infirmity is found. The learned Trial Court exercised its discretion
Decision
judiciously and in accordance with law. The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lacks merit. There is no ground made out for interference with the impugned order. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 11) All pending applications are also disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules. \ Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Arpan