-1- 2025:CGHC:18308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 368 of 2025 Gulab Singh S/o Fakir Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Pandarbhatta, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ravindra Shukla S/o Chandrika Prasad Shukla Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Pandarbhatta, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2 - Arvind Shukla S/o Chandrika Parsad Shukla Aged About 71 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Kasaridih Near Hanuman Temple, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Devendra Shukla S/o Chandrika Prasad Shukla Aged About 68 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Kasaridih Near Hanuman Temple, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate with Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 01.03.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 102A/2022, whereby the Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- application moved by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected. 2) Brief facts of the present case, are that the petitioner instituted Civil Suit No. 102A/2022 on 15.09.2022 seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property bearing Survey No. 214/1, admeasuring 2.26 acres, situated at Village Pandarbhatta, Tahsil and District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. The respondents filed their written statement denying the claims made by the petitioner, although admitting possession of the petitioner over the suit property since 2005. After framing of issues and when the suit was listed for plaintiff’s evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate an alternative relief for specific performance of contract based on an alleged oral agreement of 2005. The petitioner also proposed to amend certain paragraphs of the plaint, pay additional court fee and change the valuation accordingly. The respondents objected to the said application on grounds that the amendment sought was highly belated, that the relief of specific performance was barred by limitation, and that allowing the amendment would change the very nature and character of the suit and delay its disposal. The Learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 01.03.2025, dismissed the amendment application holding that the application was filed at a highly belated stage, that the suit had substantially progressed, and that the amendment would result in change of the nature of the suit and was barred by limitation. -3- 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the amendment application, and that the proposed amendment was necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the real dispute between the parties. It is contended that even if the relief of specific performance is alleged to be barred by limitation, it raises a mixed question of law and fact, which should be decided during trial. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned order. He would submit that the petitioner by way of amendment was seeking to introduce a new and time-barred cause of action after substantial progress in the suit; thus, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by the plaintiff. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in file. 6) The power of the court to permit amendment of pleadings is wide but not unrestricted. Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the court to allow amendment at any stage of the proceedings provided such amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, the proviso inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 restricts the power by providing that no application for amendment shall be allowed after trial has commenced, unless the court concludes that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Revajeetu Builders & Developers -4- v. Narayanaswamy & Sons (2009) 10 SCC84, laid down factors to consider when deciding on amendment applications, emphasizing that introducing a time-barred claim or changing the nature of the suit are valid grounds for rejection. In para 63, it concluded as follows: “63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. (1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) Whether the proposed amendment con institutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? And (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order VI Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” 8) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 409 observed that it is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. -5- However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. 9) In the matter of Basavaraj v. Indira & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2886 of 2012, decided on 29-02-2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to allow an amendment to the plaint that was time-barred and would have fundamentally changed the nature of the suit. 10) In the matter of L.I.C. of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 792, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that amendments introducing time- barred claims should generally be refused, as they can prejudice the other party. 11)Allowing the proposed amendment would not merely clarify or elaborate an existing claim; rather, it would fundamentally change the nature of the suit from one for declaration and injunction to one for enforcement of a contract. Such a change would cause serious prejudice to the defendants who have contested the case based on the original cause of action. 12) In the present case, it is an admitted position that the suit was instituted for declaration and injunction; issues have already been framed; the matter is at the stage of recording evidence of the plaintiff; the petitioner seeks to introduce a completely new relief based on an alleged oral agreement of 2005; the relief of specific performance is governed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and is, prima facie, barred by limitation. 13) In the light of the foregoing discussion and applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgments, the impugned order -6- dated 01.03.2025 does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim