1 2025:CGHC:49086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 771 of 2025 1 - Smt. Leela Patel W/o R.K. Patel Aged About 73 Years R/o Vill.- Bade Gumda Tah. Gharghoda, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) Present Address Vill- Tarpali, Tah. And Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Harshvardhan @Harsh Kumar Patel S/o Late Shri Khir Prasad Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o Vill.- Bade Gumda, Tah. And Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) Present Address - Sales Tax Colony Shankar Nagar House No. M-9/a Khamhardeeh Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For State : Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 24/09/2025 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing legality, correctness and judicial propriety of order dated 23/07/2025 passed by the 4th Additional Judge of 1st Civil Judge Senior Division, Raigarh in Civil Case No.Civil Suit A/36/2024 by which the application of the petitioner / plaintiff for amendment of application Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was partly allowed and was permitted to incorporate amendment below paragraph 14 2 of the plaint, however, denied proposed amendment below paragraph 16 of the plaint. 2. A suit for specific performance of contract was filed against respondent No.1 / defendant in respect of suit property comprised in Khasra No.416/1 area 2.2350 hectare equivalent to 5.52 acres situated at village -Tarpali Patwari halka No. Old 18 New 36 Bade Gumda, Tah.-Gharghoda, District – Raigarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff with a prayer to incorporate certain factual aspect which was necessary for determination of the suit on merits. The amendment was sought in two paragraphs, after para 14 and 16. Learned trial Court though allowed the amendment which was related to certain revenue proceedings carried out with respect to the suit property, however, denied averments made in respect of certain criminal cases lodged against the petitioner. He submits that the amendment is necessary for adjudication of the case on merits. Therefore, such amendment ought to have been allowed in toto. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned Trial Court has partly allowed the application for amendment and found that the amendment which was denied is not relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the case. In the opinion of this Court, the amendment should be allowed by this Court. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed and the amendment which was denied by the learned trial Court is permitted to be incorporated by the petitioner in the plaint subject to Rs.500/- to be paid to respondent No.1. Learned Trial Court shall grant 15 days’ time to the petitioner from the next date of hearing to incorporate amendment. No order as to cost. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.09.26 12:59:04 +0530