1 2025:CGHC:23328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 472 of 2025 Smt. Prem Pandey D/o Late Ramgopal Pandey Aged About 65 Years R/o Main Road, Darri, Wardno. 53, Tah. And District - Korba (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Husband Ramesh Chandra Pandey, S/o Late Shri Tekram Pandey , Aged About 70 Years R/o Puirani Basti, Darri Tah. And District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1.Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya ( Died) Through Legal Lrs Nil 1.1 - Ramrati Singhaniya W/o Late Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya Aged About 68 Years R/o Netaji Chowk Link Road Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 1.2 - Rajkumar Singhaniya S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya Aged About 43 Years R/o Netaji Chowk Link Road Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 1.3 - Shyam Singhaniya S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya Aged About 40 Years R/o Netaji Chowk Link Road Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 1.4 - Uma Agrawal W/o Shri Anil Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o Barpali Tha. Barpali District - Bargarh (Orissa) SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.07.01 10:44:10 +0530 2 1.5 - Seema Agrawal W/o Shri Ravi Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o H. No. 216/c Krishna Vihar Colony Raigarh Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) 1.6 - Mamta Kediya W/o Abhishek Kediya R/o Akaltara Tah. Akaltara District -Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2.Pawan Kumar S/o Rameshwer Singhaniya Aged About 32 Years R/o Netaji Chowk Janjgir, Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 3.Rameshwer Singhaniya S/o Johrimal Aged About 67 Years R/o Netaji Chowk Janjgir, Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 4.Ramgopal Tiwari (Died) Through Lrs) Nil 4.1 - Ram Vilas Tiwari S/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari Aged About 51 Years R/o Hriyali Heritage Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 4.2 - Ram Gulam Tiwari S/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari Aged About 46 Years R/o Collectorate Road Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 4.3 - Smt. Premlata D/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari W/o Laxmi Narayan Sharma Aged About 65 Years R/o Mahu Tah. Pamgarh District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 4.4 - Smt. Shashi Kiran Chobey D/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari W/o L.K. Chobey Aged About 61 Years R/o Shree Vihar Sarkanda Bilaspur Tah. And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4.5 - Smt. Snehlata Mishra D/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari W/o Baldu Mishra Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 8 Shankar Nagar Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 4.6 - Smt. Pushplata Chobey D/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari W/o Deepak Chobey Aged About 53 Years R/o Avikal Kunj Street No. 6/c Zone - 2 Adarsh Nagar Behicn Dominoz Pizza Durg Tah. And District -Durg (C.G.) 5.Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramgopal Tiwari Aged About 64 Years R/o Tiwari Auto Parts Netaji Chowk Janjgir, Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 3 6.State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 12/06/2025 1. The plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 02.05.2025, passed by learned District and Additional Session Judge, Janjgir Champa by which application for amendment moved by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of The CPC has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that initially Civil Suit No.60-A/2007 between Ramgopal and others vs. Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya and others was filed before the Trial Court for possession of suit property bearing Khasra No.3807/23, Area 0.05 Acre and Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya has also filed a Civil Suit No. 164-A/2005 for possession of land bearing Khasra No.3807/8, area 0.04 Acre, which were dismissed vide common judgment and decree dated 21.09.2007. 3. Being aggrieved with the dismissal of the suit both the plaintiffs have filed Civil appeals bearing FA Nos.122/2007 and 141/2007 before this Court. The appeals were allowed by this Court and the matter was remitted back 4 to the Trial Court for deciding the issue No.2 afresh. Thereafter the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.09.2021, by which the Civil Suit No.164-A/2005 (Jagdish Prasad vs. Ramgopal) was allowed and Civil Suit No. 60-A/2007 filed by Ramgopal was dismissed, against which appeals have been filed. 4. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and decree dated 13.06.2024 allowed First Appeal No. 99/2021 filed by Ramgopal and another against Jagdishprasad and remitted back the matter with a specific direction as mentioned in paragraph-15 of its judgment directing the trial Court to appoint Additional Collector who shall constitute a team of Revenue Officer with certain and specific direction for spot inspection and demarcation of the land in dispute in presence of both the parties. After receiving the report from the Additional Collector and hearing both the parties fresh judgment will be passed. 5. Thereafter proceedings were initiated before the trial Court. Plaintiff Smt. Prema Pandey moved an application on 24.04.2025 for amendment in the pleading and sought amendment in her pleadings and also to claim additional relief of removing the illegal possession and claiming vacant possession over the suit land bearing Khasra No. 3807/23 land admeasuring 0.03/3/4 acre which has been illegality taken possession by the defendants and construction has been done. The said application was rejected by the trial Court while recording its finding that this Court while remanding the matter has given direction for appointment of 5 Commissioner thereafter both the parties were directed to appear before the Court and after receiving the report from the Additional Collector and hearing both the parties, fresh judgment has to be passed. Learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that since this Court has given specific direction no further proceeding can be taken by the trial court and has rejected the same. 6. Being aggrieved with the order, the petitioner has preferred instant petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India mainly contending that the impugned order was passed by the trial court suffers from perversity and illegality wherein the trial court wrongly rejected the application for amendment in plaint ignoring the amendment would not change the nature of suit and the same is necessary for just and proper adjudication of the suit and would pray for allowing the petition and quashing of the impugned order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that this Court in FA No. 99 of 2021 has given specific direction as stated above for appointment of Commissioner consisting of Revenue Officers, thereafter they will submit their report and no further direction to proceed other than direction given by this Court. Learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application. Even otherwise, if there is an order of remand made by this Court the judicial propriety requires that the trial Court should not travel beyond the order of terms of the remand. In view of this well settled legal position, I am of the 6 view that the trial court has not committed illegality in rejecting the same which does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh