1 2025:CGHC:45783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 417 of 2023 1 - Mantora Bai Manikpuri (Dead) Through Lrs. Nill 1.1 - (A) Bhuneshwar Das Manikpuri S/o Shri N.D. Manikpuri. Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (B) Dineshwar Manikpuri S/o Shri N. D. Manikpuri. Aged About 33 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - (C) Shri N.D. Manikpuri S/o Late Shri Gyandas Manikpuri. Aged About 63 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - (D) Tinamani Manikpuri D/o Shri N.D. Manikpuri W/o Shri Govind Prasad. Aged About 37 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 1.5 - (E) Devimani Manikpuri @ Shaba Khan D/o Shir N.D. Manikpuri, W/o Shri Aasif Khan Aged About 39 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Prabhudas S/o Shri Vipatdas Manikpuri, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Manjurpahari, Post Beltara, Tahsil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspuar, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.09 14:01:18 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashok Dixit, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 09-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioners have assailed the order passed by learned Second Civil Judge – Class-II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 278-A/2019 dated 13.09.2022 whereby application moved by the petitioners/ plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case are that original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to the suit property mentioned in plaint. During pendency of the suit, original plaintiff died and defendant No. 1 forcefully took possession of the suit property, therefore an application was moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by the legal representatives of original plaintiff/ petitioners claiming therein relief of possession. Learned trial Court rejected the said application vide order dated 13.09.2022 on the ground that such amendment would change the nature of suit. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs submits that plaintiffs have sought relief of possession and want to affix appropriate court fee. He contends that learned Court erred is law while rejecting the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, therefore, the order impugned may be set aside. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 3 respondent No. 1 submits that proposed amendment would change the nature of suit, therefore learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application. 5) Learned State counsel supports the order impugned. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7) Admittedly, during pendency of suit, plaintiffs lost the possession of suit property, therefore they sought relief of possession and elaborated facts in this regard but the learned Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature of suit without considering that petitioners cannot be compelled to file a separate suit claiming therein possession and the suit was at its initial stage. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is erroneous. Accordingly, the order dated 13.09.2022 is set aside and application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is hereby allowed. 9) In view of the above, petition is allowed. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a