1 2025:CGHC:45744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 329 of 2023 * - Smt. Rimpi Sharma D/o Late Shivlal Vishwakarma Aged About 29 Years (Presently Aged About 34 Years), R/o Village Bahera, P.H.N. 00028, R.I.C. Anandgaon, Tehsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh Presently Present R/o Quarter No. 4 E, Street No. 83, Sector 6, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Babu Gyan Prakash S/o Shivlal Vishwakarma Aged About 21 Years R/o Ekta Nagar, Fish Market, Ward No. 31, Padda Pride, Vishwakarma Timber In Front Of Hotel, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Defendant No.1 2 - Mukesh Nandi S/o Ranjeet Nandi Aged About 24 Years R/o M I G 2, H.No. 1597, Ward No. 26, Housing Board Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattigarh 3 - Shyama Yadav S/o Vimal Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o H.No. 1308, Ward No. 15, Near Durga Manch Ghasidas Nagar Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Gaurav Singh Rajput S/o Kanhaiya Singh Thakur Aged About 37 Years R/o H.No. 222, Saraswati Vihar, Near Sahu Ata Chakki, Old Changorabhata Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Anantjeet Singh Chandel S/o Raghav Singh Chandel Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Reve, Post Pithora, P.S. Berla, Tehsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 6 - Kanhaiya Singh Thakur S/o Shri Achal Singh Thakur Aged About 59 Years R/o H.No. 222, Saraswati Vihar, Near Sahu Ata Chakki, Old Changorabhata Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Kusum Sharma D/o Late Shivlal Vishwakarma R/o Nandini Road, Jamul, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 9 - Smt. Bindu Sharma D/o Late Shivlal Vishwakarma, R/o Nandini Road, Jamul Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 7/State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, PL Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.12 19:22:24 +0530 2 For Other Respondents : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash direct the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 22A/2017 and allow the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper. 2. Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of the sale deeds dated 08.03.2016, 30.03.2017 and 31.03.2017 null and void and further award of compensation and damages to the tune of Rs.2 lacs on the ground that defendant No.1 created a forged document in form of power of attorney of plaintiff and her sister and alienated the property. He would submit that after framing of issues, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was moved whereby and wherein the petitioner/plaintiff challenged the alleged power of attorney dated 12.01.2016, but same has been rejected by the learned trial Court. He would submit that in plaint, the plaintiff, in Para-3 has categorically pleaded with regard to non-execution of power of attorney dated 12.01.2016, but due to inadvertence, relief to declare the power of attorney null and void was not sought for. He would contend that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of suit. He would pray to allow this petition. 3 3. On the other hand, Mr. Neelima Singh Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 7 would oppose. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Considering the submission made by Mr. Prasoon Agrawal that the plaintiff has specifically alleged the power of attorney dated 12.01.2016 in plaint, particularly in Para-3, but due to inadvertence, the plaintiff could not seek a relief to declare the said document null and void and the application for amendment was moved, therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Court committed error of law while rejecting the application for amendment moved by the petitioner/plaintiff. 6. Consequently, the order dated 31.03.2023 is hereby set aside and the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti