1 2025:CGHC:23001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 304 of 2025 1. Rajkumar S/o Antaryami Aged About 75 Years Caste - Aghariya, R/o Village - Keshripur Nawagaon, Tahsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2. Surendra Kumar S/o Rajkumar Aged About 51 Years Caste - Aghariya, R/o Village - Keshripur Nawagaon, Tahsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3. Mahendra Kumar S/o Rajkumar Aged About 48 Years Caste - Aghariya, R/o Village - Keshripur Nawagaon, Tahsil - Pithora, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Mohd. Imran S/o Shri F.R. Khan Aged About 30 Years Caste - Muslim, R/o Baijnathpara, Police Station - City Kotwali, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 11.06.2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Section 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Second District Judge MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.06.16 18:35:19 +0530 2 Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. H-04/2021 by which the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff on 09.01.2024, by the said application the plaintiff also intends to add Bhagirathi Patel, Vimlabai Patel, Nandai, Suresh, Satbati and Nanbutiya as defendants, also seeks to change the date of sale deed and also seeks to incorporate the valuation of the suit on a higher side. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the said application was objected by the sole defendant contending that the application is filed after the trial has already begun, the parties have already led their evidence and now the matter is fixed for final arguments on 17.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is well settled position of law that even the amendment is necessary, it can be incorporated even before the judgment is pronounced, thus, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 4. The submission was vehemently objected by the learned counsel for the defendant, He would further submit that the learned trial Court after considering the parameters laid down for incorporating the amendment application has rejected the same which does not warrant interference by this Court and would submit that no material irregularity or illegality has been committed by the trial Court which warrants interference by this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost satisfaction. 3 6. From perusal of the application, it is quite vivid that the plaintiff has moved an application for amendment, at that time the trial was not at final stage, but now the trial has already reached to its logical end and by the said application he intends to incorporate certain defendants as party to the case, whereas the defendant has taken a defence that the persons whose names have been mentioned in the amendment application are necessary party and in theirs absence, the suit is not maintainable and if this amendment is subsequently allowed it will have an adverse affect on the interest of the defendants and will also change the nature of the suit, therefore, at this juncture amendment cannot be considered. Thus, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application. However, plaintiff is at liberty to take grounds as the order of rejection of amendment application on 26.03.2025 (Annexure P/11) at the appellate stage, if exigency so arises. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish