-1- 2025:CGHC:2846 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 942 of 2024 Shabnam Qureshi W/o Late Mohammed Salim Aged About 65 Years By Mukhiyar Haji Mohammad Wasi Qureshi R/o Quarter No. S-9, Sector 1, Avanti Vihar, Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Javed Parvez @ Arif S/o Late Haji Latif Miyan, Sai, Aged About 46 Years R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, House No. 12/163, Telipara, Golbazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Asif Iqbal S/o Late Haji Latif Miyan, Sai, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, House No. 12/163, Telipara, Golbazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rashid Iqbal S/o Late Haji Latif Miyan, Sai, Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, House No. 12/163, Telipara, Golbazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Zabi Akhatar, S/o Late Haji Latif Miyan Aged About 37 Years R/o Dhebar Plaza, Baron Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shayka Ruhi S/o Late Haji Latif Miyan Aged About 35 Years R/o Mandla Road Balaghat, District Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh. 6 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Collector, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Tehsildar, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. G. M. Hasan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent No. 2&3 : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For respondent No. 4 : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 6 & 7 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.01.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case. II. That, this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/or writs/ order/ or orders, to quash the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Fourth Upper District Judge Durg Chhattisgarh in civil suit no. C. S. A/46/2023 and further issue direction to the learned trial court to decide the civil suit no. C.S. A/46/2023 as early as possible, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted.” 2) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned IV th Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No.A46/2023 dated 26.07.2024, whereby an application moved by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected. 3) The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition and possession in respect of the suit land. The petitioner moved an application for amendment on 26.08.2023 and proposed the following amendments:- "2. यह कि वाद प्ቔ कि ्ቅ. 02 पकि 2 ेሰ ेሰरहेሰ जेሰला खातुन बाद- 1986 ቇኋेሰ दज था जेሰला खातुन ेሰत्य पश्चातु# 1978 पश्चातु तुथा 1990-91 ेሰ नेሰ ज$़቟ जन ह& । तुथा कि 02 पकि- 04 ेሰ दस्तुवाज) बाद 25/7/- 1996 तु ज$़቟ जन ह& तुथा इसी कि पकि 7 ेሰ अन्य किहस्सीदर) बाद- ेሰेሰतुज बागेሰ ज/ज जलातुफ किेሰय ज$़቟ जन ह& । तुथा इसी कि आठवा पकि ेሰ किबा र बाद स्वा. हेሰलाला, शेष नरयण -3- एवा सीरेሰर भाटाचाय ज$न ह& । तुथा कि ्ቅ. 02 09 पकि अथावा बाद उसी जवाबा वादन नेሰ ज$़቟ जन ह& । वाद प्ቔ कि 12 पकि ेሰ बाचा किदय ह: बाद- 135 रबा 1.133, खासीर न. 134 रबा 1.072 हक्टा., खासीर न. 134/135 रबा सीरेሰर भाटाटाचाय, खासीर न. 289 टा रबा 0.59 किदन- 02/07/1996 $, 286 टा़቟ 0.58 शेष नरयण $ किवा्ቅय किदन- 21/08/2001 $ बाचा किदय ह& । 3. यह कि वाद प्ቔ कि ्ቅ.03 पकि 08 ेሰ अपन नेሰ पर .. वाष 2005 तु ज$़቟ जन ह& । 4. यह कि वाद प्ቔ कि . 04 ेሰ भा< सीपद पर बाद वाष 2008 ज$़቟ जन ह& । 5. यह कि वाद प्ቔ कि ्ቅ. 05 ेሰ ्ቚथाेሰ पकि रवाय ह& बाद- तुथा वातुेሰन परन रिर उपलाब्ध नहA ह& । इसी वाद पकि 06 ेሰ वाकिदन $ बाद- अवा&ध तुर सी खातु रन सी भा र$तु ह: स्थान पर - ह नहA ्ቚदन र रह ह: । 6. यह कि वाद प्ቔ कि 06 द<सीर पቌኌत्न ेሰ जवानला ेሰ वाह वा ेሰतु ज$़቟ जन ह& । तुथा वाद प्ቔ कि 6 वा पकि रवा लिलाय ह& बाद- ቇኋेሰ ेሰकिटाय भा$थाला, प..हन. 04, खासीर नय 340/1, 340/2, 340/3 एवा 340/4 ज$़቟ जन ह& । 7. यह कि वाद प्ቔ कि 07 चा/था पकि अन्य जेሰन) वा सीपलिD ेሰ खारददर) नेሰ ज$़቟ जन ह&। 8. यह कि वाद प्ቔ कि 08 ेሰ 6 वाA पकि ेሰ ्ቌकितु बाद ह$न प<ण सीभावान ह& ज$ जन ह&। 9. यह कि वाद प्ቔ कि 09 अकितुेሰ पकि बाद वाकिदन प्ቌ ेሰ स्थाय किनषधሺኋ जर किय जन न्यय$किचातु ह$ग । 10. यह कि बाद प्ቔ कि 10 द<सीर पकि ेሰ उत्प्ቐ ह$र बाद जर ह& ज$़቟न ह& तुथा इसी कि पचावा लाईन ेሰ पथा बाद ब्ज ज$़቟ जन ह& । 11. यह कि कि 13 उप कि सी अकितुेሰ प&र ेሰ र स्थान पर सी सीशे$धन रन ह& । 12. यह कि सीत्यपन कि ेሰ ेሰ: बाद ቦኍेሰतु शेबानेሰ रशे तुथा हज ेሰ$हम्ेሰद वासी रशे पहला सीशे$धन किय जन ह&।" 4) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the -4- defendants filed their reply and thereafter, the learned trial Court vide order impugned rejected the application on the ground that earlier twice, applications for amendment were moved and these facts were not brought in those applications. The application has been moved after 02 years and no reasons have been assigned by the plaintiff in this regard. He further contended that the application for amendment was moved by the plaintiff before the commencement of the trial. He would contend that the issues have not been framed, and the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 5) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose and submit that the plaintiff has not assigned any reason to make amendments in the plaint. They would contend that the application was moved after 02 years without assigning sufficient cause for such delay. They would further contend that the plaintiff failed to assign the necessity to bring such amendments in the plaint. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the application. It is argued that the plaintiff has proposed amendments to change the name as the earlier suit was filed by the power of attorney holder. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7) The 3 rd application for amendment was moved by the plaintiff on 26.08.2023. The first application for amendment was allowed by the trial Court whereas the second application was withdrawn. The application was moved by the plaintiff -5- for amendment after 02 years from the date of filing of the suit and on that date, the issues were not framed by the learned trial Court and thus, the trial was not commenced. 8) Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is reproduced for ready reference:- “Order 6 Rule 17 : Amendment of Pleadings : The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 9) Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would make it clear that the concerned Court may allow the application for amendment if the application was moved by either party before the commencement of the trial. 10) In the present case, as the trial was not commenced and particularly the amendment proposed by the plaintiff does not change the nature of the suit, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has committed an error of law in rejecting the application. Further, the objection with regard to the amendment in the verification of the plaint, there is no such bar and earlier, the suit was filed by the power of attorney holder and thereafter, the plaintiff himself entered before the Court to pursue his case, therefore, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. -6- 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned IV th Additional District Judge, Durg, in C.S.A/46/2023 is hereby set-aside. The application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 is hereby allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to grant a reasonable time to the plaintiff to incorporate the amendment(s) in the plaint. 12) Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim