Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.02 16:45:58 +0530 2025:CGHC:15131 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 489 of 2021
Legal Reasoning
1. Jethuram S/o Firanta Aged About 62 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Devtari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Panchram S/o Firanta Aged About 45 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Devtari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3. Sukh Bai D/o Firanta Aged About 35 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Devtari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. Minor Suryakant S/o Panchram Aged About 14 Years Petitioner No. 4 Is Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Panchram S/o Firanta, R/o Village Devtari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5. Ravikant S/o Panchram Aged About 10 Years Petitioner No. 5 Is Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Panchram S/o Firanta, R/o Village Devtari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner(s) 1. Chhoturam S/o Firanta Aged About 70 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Devtari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Rama S/o Firanta Aged About 55 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Devtari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3. Meghnath S/o Firanta Caste Satnami, R/o Village Devtari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. Kamta Khunte S/o Sudheram Khunte Caste Satnami, R/o Sakri, Ward No. 02, Bandhwapara, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5. Pushpa Bai D/o Sudheram Khunte W/o Dhaulatram Kurre, Caste Satnami, R/o Village Yadunandan, Tifra, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6. Kanti Bai D/o Sudheram Khunte W/o Tribhuvan, Caste Satnami, R/o Village Temri, (Nandghat), Tahsil Nandghat, District Baloda Bazaar Chhattisgarh 7. Sushma D/o Sudheram Khunte W/o Amit Banjare, Caste Satnami, R/o Jarhabarbaspur, Tahsil Lormi District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2 8. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners For State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28. 03.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the court below for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) and allow the application u/o 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over survey No. 49/8, 49/9, 51/2, 148, 208/2, total admeasuring 0.740 hectares situated at Village Devtari, Patwari Circle No. 14, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3 are in possession of the suit property after partition, but defendants No. 3 and 4 executed a will-deed of the subject land. It is pleaded that initially, the suit property was recorded in the name of Budhwara Bai and after her death, the plaintiffs and defendants inherited the property. It is also pleaded that according to the provisions of the CG. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the wife 3 cannot claim partition. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the petitioners are the only legal representative of Budhwara Bai. 3. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was moved by the petitioners inter alia on the ground that plaintiff No. 3 namely, Sukbai had shown herself as the daughter of Late Bhudwara Bai and Late Firanta, whereas, they had no daughter. It is also pleaded that the plaintiffs have disclosed the date of cause of action on 19.10.2019, whereas, the will deed was executed on 19.10.2016 and the case was filed after three years from 19.10.2016. They made a prayer to reject the plaint in want of the cause of action. 4. A reply was filed by the plaintiffs. They stated that due to a typographical mistake, the name and date are wrongly mentioned in the plaint and they shall move an application for amendment to correct those typographical mistakes. 5. The learned trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2021 rejected the application moved by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that the defects pointed out by the petitioners in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC can be rectified by way of amendment and the issue of cause of action can be decided after recording the evidence of the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Late Bhudwari Bai and Firanta had only a son but the plaintiffs wrongly mentioned plaintiff No.3 as their daughter. He would further submit that the date of execution of the will-deed is wrongly mentioned as 19.10.2019, whereas it was executed on 19.10.2016; therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the 4 documents placed on the record. 9. A perusal of the application moved by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC would show that there were certain typographical mistakes in the plaint, like the name of a party and the date of execution of the will-deed. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court rightly held that such typographical mistakes can be rectified by way of amendment. 10. A perusal of the application would show that the ingredients of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are not available. Thus, the learned trial Court was justified in rejecting the aforesaid application. Consequently, this petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant