1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1199 of 2024 1 - Smt. Sano Devi W/o Shri Naresh Kumar Mathur Aged About 37 Years Occupation- House Wife, R/o Subhash Market, House No. 274, 275, Sector 11, Jone No. 2, Kursipar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.)(Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kaushlendra Gupta S/o Lt. Rajeshwar Gupta R/o Ajad Chowk, Gupta Shringar, Beside Of The Khandelwal General Store, Kasaridih, Durg, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Defendant No. 1a) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) (Defendant No. 2) 3 - Smt. Pratibha Dani D/o Veer Abhimanyu Dani R/o House No. 409/40, Dani Hospital, Ward No. 40, Near Rani Laxmi Bai Chowk, Kelabadi, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh)(Defendant No. 3) 4 - Smt. Anju Dani W/o Vivek Dani R/o Village- Keshdabari, Tah. Berla, Distt. Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)(Defendant No. 4) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None though served. For State / Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, PL For Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/02/2026 This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.02.10 16:49:14 +0530 2 filed challenging the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Civil Judge”) in Civil Suit No. 33-A/2013. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while rejecting the remaining part of the amendment sought. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner initially filed a civil suit for injunction and possession in respect of the suit property comprising portions of Khasra Nos. 242/2, 242/3 and 496, admeasuring 0.40 hectare, 1.00 acre, 0.40 hectare / 1.00 acre and 3.28 hectares / 8.20 acres respectively, situated at Village Keshdabari, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. The case was being conducted by another counsel. Subsequently, the petitioner entrusted the case to a different counsel, and upon examination of the pleadings, it was found that for seeking complete and effective relief, the plaint required amendment and incorporation of a relief for declaration of title. Consequently, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, proposing insertion of four paragraphs as 7-A to 7-D after paragraph 7 of the plaint. By the said application, consequential amendments were also sought in the relief clause, valuation of the suit and payment of court fee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by the impugned order the learned Civil Judge has partly allowed the application and permitted the petitioner to incorporate the amendment by inserting paragraphs 7-A to 7-D after paragraph 7 of the plaint. It was observed that the said amendment was consequential in nature, whereas the remaining amendment sought in paragraph 5 of the application was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code 3 of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying that the amendments sought in the relief clause as well as in the valuation of the suit and payment of court fee were necessary and therefore, deserved to be allowed. It was submitted that since defendant No. 3 had carried out certain amendments and the present application was consequential thereto, the amendment earlier declined with respect to valuation of the suit and court fee ought to have been permitted. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 opposes the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit, and therefore, the learned Civil Judge has rightly rejected the application for amendment. It is further submitted that the application was filed after commencement of trial and there is no illegality, perversity or material irregularity to the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/State submits that the dispute is essentially between the private parties and the State has no direct role in the controversy. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the factual assertions in the plaint by inserting paragraphs 7-A to 7-D after paragraph 7. In addition thereto, amendments were also sought in paragraphs 3 and 5 with regard to valuation of the suit and payment of court fee, along with consequential amendment in the prayer clause. The learned Civil Judge partly allowed the application and rejected the remaining amendments. 8. The submission of the petitioner is that the application was filed after exercising due diligence and that the proposed amendments were also consequential to the amendment application filed by respondent No. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the 4 proposed amendments would change the nature of the suit. The learned Civil Judge, while rejecting the remaining proposed amendments, observed only that they did not appear to be consequential in nature. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh K. Aggarwal and ors. v. K.K.Modi and ors., (2006) 4 SCC 385 in paragraph 17 observed thus-: 17. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case.” 10. In case of Rajesh K. Agrawal (supra) the amendment in the relief clause was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relying upon this judgment, in identical facts situation Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of odwin Agro Products Ltd. and anr. v. Santokh Singh and anr., (CR No.4291/2024) in para 13 held thus-: “13. Thus, it is evident that the declaration is being sought w.r.t. same rasta qua which the injunction was sought initially. Obviously without declaring that the plaintiffs have easementary right, injunction could not have been granted recognizing the right of the plaintiff to use the rasta on the basis of easementary right i.e. right by prescription. Thus, merely by claiming declaratory relief by way of proposed amendment, nature of suit does not get altered. Every amendment in the prayer clause does not amount to alteration in the nature of the suit.” 5 11. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that unless a prayer for declaration of title is incorporated, the remaining reliefs as proposed cannot be effectively sought. It is contended that the proposed amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the case on merits and that mere allowance of the amendment would not amount to proof of the pleadings so introduced. The defendants would always have the right to file consequential pleadings and raise all available objections. 12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order, insofar as it rejects the petitioner’s application with respect to amendment relating to valuation of the suit, payment of court fee, and the relief clause, does not appear to be sustainable in law. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order sofar as rejected by the civil judge is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint in terms of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, subject to payment of costs of 500/- to be paid to the ₹ defendant Nos. 3 & 4 before the learned civil judge. The amendment shall be carried out on a date to be fixed by the learned Civil Judge. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan