1 2025:CGHC:27507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 400 of 2025  Meenakshi Deshmukh W/o Late Hemant Kumar Deshmukh Aged About 36 Years R/o Housing Board Colony, Ward No. 20, Lalbag, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Moksha Deshmukh S/o Late Hemant Kumar Deshmukh Aged About 13 Years Natural Guardian Grand Father Ramesh Kumar Deshmukh S/o Late Faguwaram Deshmukh, R/o Village- Janjgiri, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 24-06-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner/ plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the learned Third District Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2021 dated 11.03.2025 whereby application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been partly allowed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff submits that plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the 2 suit property mentioned in plaint situated at Korinabhata (Ramkrishna Ward) P.H. No. 38, Tehsil & District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.). He further submits that during pendency of civil suit, application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was moved to rectify the typographical mistakes and learned trial Court partly allowed the application and rejected the amendments proposed in paras 3, 4, 5 and 7 of plaint. He contends that in para 3 (line-8), petitioner wanted to add “plaintiff purchased it from her own income” ; in para 5 (line-26), petitioner wanted to add “ no consideration was paid and it is evident from bank pass-book” ; in para 6 (line-10), petitioner wanted to add “purchased from her own income” and ; in para 7 (line-4), petitioner wanted to add “ from my own” . He further contends that proposed amendments would not change the nature of suit, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have allowed these amendments also. He argues that though the application was partly allowed but Trial Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- which is harsh. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/ defendants oppose. They submit that amendments were sought by the petitioner at belated stage and they were not meaningful, therefore, same were rejected with cost of Rs. 10,000/- and application was partly allowed. 4) Heard. 5) Evidently, petitioner moved application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the plaint and learned Trial Court partly 3 allowed the application and permitted petitioner to rectify typographical mistakes in the plaint whereas the amendments sought in paras 3, 4, 5 and 7 were rejected. 6) I have gone through the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC along with plaint. If the amendments sought by the petitioner in paras 3, 4, 5 and 7 are allowed, it will not give meaningful effect to the pleadings made in those paras. Further, the application was moved at belated stage when matter was set for plaintiff’s evidence, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, learned Trial Court has passed a reasonable order with regard to the amendments proposed by the petitioner. 7) However, with regard to imposition of cost of Rs. 10,000/-, learned Trial Court has directed to deposit cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to DLSA, Rajnandgaon but no direction has been issued with regard to remainder cost. Further, when the application moved by the petitioner has been partly allowed, there was no occasion for the Court to impose cost. 8) In view of the above, order whereby cost of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed on petitioner is hereby set-aside. It is made clear that the rest part of the order impugned shall remain intact. 9) With the aforesaid direction(s), instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.06.24 16:49:33 +0530