1 2025:CGHC:14188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 252 of 2025  Dr. Jhurendra Kumar Pathak Alias Jhuraari S/o Late Rambharose Pathak Aged About 78 Years R/o Village Pendri, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Bhupendra Pathak Alias Bhupal S/o Late Kedarnath Pathak Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Pendri, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Kripal Pathak S/o Late Kedarnath Pathak Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Pendri, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Santosh Pathak S/o Late Kedarnath Pathak Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Pendri, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4. Ashok Pathak S/o Late Kedarnath Pathak Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Pendri, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 5 : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 25-03-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Judge to First Civil Judge-Senior Division, Takhatpur, District-Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 08A/2014 dated 09.12.2024 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.03.25 17:58:22 +0530 2 whereby the application moved by the plaintiff U/o 6 Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 has been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession pertaining to the various Khasra Nos. situated over Village- Pendri, Teh.- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur on the ground that a will-deed was executed by one Smt. Kantibai Pathak in his favor. During pendency of the civil suit, an application for amendment was moved and same was rejected vide order dated 26.07.2021; thereafter, the suit was dismissed on merits. First appeal was preferred and the learned first appellate Court remitted back the matter to the learned trial Court to decide it afresh. The plaintiff moved an application U/o 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking similar prayer on identical grounds and that application has been rejected vide order dated 09.12.2024. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for amendment does not change the nature of the suit. He further submits that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 5) Heard. 6) Evidently, the earlier application moved under U/o 6 Rule 17 of CPC was rejected vide order dated 26.07.2021 and it was never challenged, thus, it attained finality. Further, another application seeking similar relief on identical grounds was moved before the learned Court below. Also, the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court would make it clear that no liberty was reserved in favor of plaintiff/ petitioner to move an application for amendment afresh. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of 3 this Court, no case is made out for interference with the order impugned. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya