1 2025:CGHC:29849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 644 of 2022 • Swapnil Nahar S/o Dr. Shri Nandkumar Nahar Aged About 34 Years R/o B - 7, Saket Apartment Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus • Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Commissioner Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. K.A. Ansari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Owaish Akhtar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Devashish Biswas, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10 a) That the Hon’ble court be pleased to call for all the records of the court below. 10 b) That after perusal of record the Hon’ble Court pleased to allow this petition and set-aside the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Suit no. 110-A/2021 and allow the application for amendment U/o 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. filed by petitioner. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.04 11:01:04 +0530 2 10 c) Any other relief that the Hon’ble Court deems fit to be given to the petitioner may also be given to be petitioner. 10 d) Cost of this petition be also awarded to the petitioner against the respondent. 2. Mr. K.A. Ansari, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and damages against the respondent inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of lands bearing Survey Nos. 1633/3 and 1633/8 situated at Village Mangla, Tehsil and District Bilaspur and the Municipal Corporation had proposed 80 feet wide road over Survey No. 1539, which affects some part of the suit land. He would contend that a boundary wall was constructed by the petitioner/plaintiff over Survey Nos. 1633/3 and 1633/8. He would contend that the Municipal Corporation took a decision to demolish the boundary wall raised by the petitioner for the construction of 80 feet wide road, therefore, the suit was filed along with an application for temporary injunction. He would further contend that the order of temporary injunction was not passed in favour of the petitioner and the respondent completed the construction of 80 feet wide road and part of the boundary wall of the petitioner was demolished. He would also contend that the suit was filed by the petitioner on 06.09.2014. After the demolition of the boundary wall and completion of the construction of 80 feet wide road, the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for bringing subsequent events with regard to the construction of the road and also sought relief for vacant possession after the demolition of road. Mr. K.A. Ansari, learned Senior Advocate would further argue that the 3 application was replied to by the respondent and the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.09.2022 rejected the application on the ground that it was moved after framing of issues at a belated stage. He would also argue that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit and it was moved immediately after the completion of the construction of a road by the respondent, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are erroneous. He would pray to set aside the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the learned trial Court and to allow the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Devashish Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate. He would submit that the petitioner was aware of the demarcation report at the time of filing the civil suit. He would contend that the petitioner never approached the authorities for re-demarcation and failed to challenge it. He would contend that in the demarcation report, it was found that the petitioner had encroached over government land, therefore, the illegal construction was demolished and the construction of the road was completed by the respondent. He would also submit that the petitioner moved an application for amendment after framing of issues and according to the proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, the application was not maintainable and the learned trial Court rightly rejected it. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. It appears that initially, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. An application for temporary injunction was moved by the petitioner making prayer to restrain the respondent from 4 raising the construction of the road. The application for temporary injunction was rejected. During the pendency of the suit, on the basis of the demarcation report, the respondent started the construction of the road and completed it. The part of the boundary wall raised by the petitioner was demolished for the construction of the road. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for amendment to bring the subsequent events and a prayer was also made to demolish the road constructed over the part of the suit land. 6. In the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited [AIR 2022 SC 4256], the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, particularly in Para- 70 held as under:- (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for 5 amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 7. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra) and the facts of the present case, in my opinion, the learned trial Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Consequently, the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the learned Court below is hereby set aside. The application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is hereby allowed. The petitioner would be at liberty to carry out necessary amendments before the learned trial Court. 8. Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti