1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 861 of 2023 1 - Ashok Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Ramratan Shrivastava Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 22, Kunj Bihar Colony, Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ayodyanath Mishra S/o Shri Bholanath Mishra Aged About 69 Years Caste Bharman Occupation Retired R/o Ward No. 25, Juni Hatri Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None For Respondent/State : Shri Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 02/02/2026 Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 04/10/2023 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Rajnandgaon, CG in Civil Suit No.105-A/2018 by which the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant in the civil suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for specific 2 performance of contract in respect of the agricultural land comprised in khasra No.364 area 1.40 dismil situated at village-Bijebhata, Tahsil and district- Rajnandgaon (CG). He submits that the said suit was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff and written statement was also filed by the petitioner/defendant. He submits that though pleadings have been incorporated in the written statement but necessary pleadings could not be made therein and an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed. He submits that the petitioner has specifically mentioned in the application that he could not contact his advocate as he passed away and the case was being looked after by his junior advocate. Unfortunately, the amendment sought for could not be earlier incorporated in the written statement and are necessary for adjudication of the civil suit on merits. He submits that if the application is not allowed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors. (2018) 11 SCC 722. 3. Despite service, none appeared for respondent No.1. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No.1. 5. On perusal of the application, it appears that a detailed amendment is being sought by the petitioner. The suit appears to be filed for specific performance of contract in respect of the aforesaid property. The amendment appears to be with respect to elaboration of defence of the petitioner. He submits that the evidence has not started, no issues have been framed and due diligence has been shown in filing application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Learned Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that the suit is at the stage of evidence and possibility of creating complications cannot be ruled out and also the application appears to have been filed with intention to delay the trial. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order deserves to be set aside as the amendment application appears to be necessary for adjudication on the merits of the case and adequate explanation has been given regarding due diligence on the part of the petitioner in not moving amendment application earlier before commencement of the trial. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev 3 Builders (supra) held that the Courts have to be liberal and allow amendment of pleadings at Pre-Trial stage. Post-trial amendment can also be allowed subject to party establishing sufficient cause for such amendments. 7. The respondent is also at liberty to make consequential amendment. Mere making amendment in the pleadings does not need to prove the same fact. The petitioner/defendant is still required to prove the amendment so made by leading cogent and prudent evidence. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff before the trial Court. The petitioner shall make the amendment in the written statement on the date given by the learned Trial Court. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.02.02 16:18:52 +0530