1 2025:CGHC:27559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 520 of 2021  Smt. Kanta Devi W/o Late Bajranglal Agrawal Aged About 61 Years R/o Station Road, Sakti, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sushil Kumar S/o Lekra Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Lara, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Surendri W/o Shri Gurucharan Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Pusaur Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Anjana Patel W/o Laxmiprasad Patel Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Panigaon, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Kailash Chandra Agrawal S/o Bhimsen Agrawal R/o Village Pusaur, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Babita Prasad W/o Shri P.N. Prasad Aged About 42 Years R/o Aashiyana Nagar, Nav Vikas Colony, Phase Ii, Patna (Bihar), Presently Residing At, Aadharsh Nagar, Chote Uttarmuda, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 25-06-2025 1) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned Third Civil Judge–Class-II, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. A/552/2013 dated 20.09.2021 whereby application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction wherein she sought relief that sale-deed dated 23.06.2009 executed by defendant No. 1 in favor of defendants No. 2 and 3 and sale-deed dated 21.04.2008 be declared null and void. She further sought relief to declare the consent letter dated 19.07.2008, a forged document. She also sought relief to declare mutation orders dated 14.08.2009 and 13.06.2008 as null and void. During pendency of civil suit, plaintiff moved application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in plaint stating that there are some mistakes in the plaint and she wants to propose amendment with respect to Court Fee paid by the petitioner for purpose of instituting the civil suit. She further proposed amendment to declare the sale-deeds and mutation orders as null and void. A prayer was also made to rectify certain typographical errors. The application was replied by the defendants. Learned Trial Court vide its order dated 3 20.09.2021 rejected the application on the ground that same has been moved at belated stage when the matter is set for final arguments. It is also observed in the order impugned that if proposed amendments are allowed, nature of suit would be changed. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that relief to declare the sale-deeds and mutation orders as null and void were already prayed in the prayer clause, therefore there was no occasion for the Trial Court to disallow such prayer. He further submits that petitioner wanted to affix proper Court Fee according to the Court Fee Act, 1870 which she could not pay at the time of filing of suit and the Trial Court ought to have allowed such prayer. He prays to set-aside the order impugned and allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner has moved the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC at belated stage, therefore the Trial Court has rightly rejected the same. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Evidently, the suit was instituted on 31.07.2013 ; issues were framed on 02.03.2021 and issues regarding valuation of suit and affixing proper Court Fee were also framed. The petitioner moved application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on 13.09.2021 after evidence of the parties, particularly when matter was set for final arguments. 4 7) From the above-discussed facts, it is clear that petitioner was aware of the fact that appropriate Court Fee has not been affixed ; suit has not been properly valued and there are various typographical errors in the plaint but she kept mum for considerable period and did not take any step to move application for amendment. Further, with regard to amendment sought in prayer clause, petitioner has already sought relief to declare the sale-deeds and mutation orders as null and void, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to propose such amendment. 8) Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner and there is no good ground to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya