1 2025:CGHC:15417 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 278 of 2025  Smt. Meena Parte W/o Late Rajendra Tandon Aged About 72 Years R/o Behind Gayatri Mandri, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), Through Power Of Attorney Holder Garima Agrawal, Aged About 32 Years, W/o Gaurav Agrawal, R/o Behind Of Gayatri Mandir, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), (Defendant) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Manoj Kumar Maheshwari S/o Janakram Maheshwari Aged About 49 Years R/o Pathak Gali, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), (Plaintiff) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner-in-Person : Ms. Garima Agrawal. through power of Attorney Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02. 04.2025 1. The petitioner/defendant has challenged the order passed by the learned 10th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur dated 06.03.2025, in Civil Suit No. (B)/3/2018, whereby, an application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected on the ground that it was moved at the final hearing stage. 2. Ms. Garima Agrawal would submit that an application for amendment was moved on 06.03.2025 at about 11.30 hours, but the learned Court below recorded a finding that it was moved at about 4.30 pm and thus finding in this regard is erroneous. She would further submit that the petitioner has the right to move the application for amendment at any stage and the learned trial Court ought to have considered this aspect. She would also SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.03 13:43:05 +0530 2 submit that the defendant wanted to insert certain facts, which could not be brought in the written statement. She would contend that the instant petition may be allowed. 3. I have heard Ms. Agrawal and perused the documents placed on the record. 4. The petitioner has not annexed a copy of the plaint and written statement. An application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC has been placed on record as Annexure P/2. The application would show that the petitioner proposed an amendment to the effect that the plaintiff failed to take steps with regard to the regularization of a double-storey building and when he came to know about the valuation of the property, he did not give his consent. It is also stated that the Collector found the valuation of the property at Rs. 27,00,000/- insufficient and rejected the application for the grant of permission. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that after completion of the trial when the case was set for judgment, an application for amendment was moved. It appears that the petitioner was aware of these facts at the time of filing the written statement, but no steps were taken to move the application for amendment. An application was moved at the fag end of the trial. It is informed by the petitioner that the case is set for judgment on 07.04.2025. 6. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any illegality or error of law in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 7. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant