1 2025:CGHC:13622 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 87 of 2024 1 - Smt Mani Devi W/o Satyam Narayan Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Vikasnagar Jhaabar Dipika Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt Reeta Singh W/o Shambhu Prasad Singh Aged About 52 Years Caste Bhumihar R/o Vikasnagar Jhaabar Dipika Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Prashant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent /State : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 21/03/2025 : 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not pressing the present Revision so far as challenge made to the order KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.03.22 13:13:10 +0530 2 dated 26.2.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.45-A/2023 on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC on the ground that the same is appealable. 2. Accordingly, the present Revision is dismissed as far as the challenge made to the order dated 26.2.2024 is concerned. 3. The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 3.4.2024 (wrongly mentioned in the order sheet of the trial Court as 3.4.2023) whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was allowed whereas the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title of Khasra No.279/11, ad measuring 0.15 acre situated at village Jhabar, alleging that she is the title holder of one half share of the suit land and also for permanent injunction in respect of shops No.1 & 3. By way of amendment, partition and possession of the open land was sought, which is situated behind 4 shops of Khasra No.279/11, which was wrongly allowed by the trial Court. He would further submit that proper valuation has not been made by the plaintiff and relief has also been sought for partition. 4 shops are situated on the subject land and valuation has been made in accordance with the land revenue, which is not proper. He would submit that the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff would support the impugned order. He would submit that no relief has been sought 3 with respect to shop situated in Khasra No.279/11 and only partition has been sought for the land which is situated behind the aforesaid 4 shops for which proper valuation according to the land revenue has been made, and for declaration and permanent injunction, the plaintiff is free to put valuation. He would also submit that the suit is at the initial stage and amendment has been allowed only in respect of valuation and no prejudice has been caused to the other side. Therefore, the present Revision may be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the Revision. 7. In the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another {AIR 2022 SC 4256}, it has been held that all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 8. Since the suit is at the initial stage and the amendment was sought with regard to correction of valuation, this Court does not find any error in allowing the amendment application. 9. The plaintiff has averred that the suit property is the joint property of the parties. In para-5 of the plaint, it has been averred that as per the mutual consent and arrangement, the plaintiff has been allotted shops No.1 & 3 whereas the defendant has been allotted shops No.2 & 4. They are in possession of the aforesaid shops and the present suit is only confined to the land which is situated behind the aforesaid shops for which valuation has been made according to the land revenue. The suit has been filed 4 before the Civil Judge Class-II and, therefore, for declaration and permanent injunction valuation has been made. An objection has been raised by the defendant that in the subject land shops are also existed. In the relief clause of the plaint, the following relief was sought:- “oknHkwfe [k-u- 279/11 jdck 0-15 ,dM+ Lkkes fufeZr nqdku rFkk vkus tkus dk jkLrk ds ihNs [kqyh Hkwfe tks pkSgn~h nhokj ls f?kjh gqbZ rFkk 'kkfeykr o oknHkwfe dk nks fgLls esa foHkktu fd;k tkdj 1 fgLlk okfnuh dks fnyk;k tkosA^^ 10. Reading of the aforesaid relief would make it clear that the partition has been sought for the built up shops and the land which is situated behind the said shops. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the matter of M/s Commercial Aviation and Travel Co. & Ors. Vs. Vimla Pannalal {(1988) 3 SCC 423}, it is held that the plaintiff has not put the valuation according to the objective standard of the valuation, as on the suit land 4 shops are situated. 11. In the circumstances, the trial Court is directed to afford an opportunity to the respondent No.1/plaintiff to correct the valuation within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondent No.1/plaintiff fails to correct the valuation within the aforesaid period, appropriate orders may be passed. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the Civil Revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve