1 2025:CGHC:25539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 966 of 2024 1. Budhari Verma S/o Palat Verma, Aged About 80 Years R/o Village - Mohbhatta, Tahsil And District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Through Their Special Power Of Attorney Holder Namely Feruram Verma S/o Khorbahra Verma, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Village - Mohbhatta, Ward No. 06, Nagar Palika - Bemetara, Tahsil And District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiffs) 2. Tulsiram S/o Budhari Verma, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Mohbhatta, Tahsil And District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Through Their Special Power Of Attorney Holder Namely Feruram Verma S/o Khorbahra Verma, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Village - Mohbhatta, Ward No. 06, Nagar Palika - Bemetara, Tahsil And District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiffs) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Dukalha Verma S/o Jhadu Verma, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Mohbhatta, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 1) 2. Punni Bai D/o Jhadu Verma, Aged About 66 Years W/o Salik Verma, R/o Village - Amora, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 2) 3. Fohara Verma D/o Jhadu Verma Aged About 60 Years W/o Dukalu Verma, R/o Village - Tendubhata, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 3) 4. Lata Bai W/o Shiv Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Mohbhatta, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 4) 5. Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Ramcharan Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Mohbhatta, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 5) 6. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bemetara, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No. 6) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners/Plaintiffs : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 4 & 5 : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.19 12:09:42 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 06.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the First Civil Judge Class II, Bemetara, District Bemetara in Civil Suit No. 29 A/2021, whereby an application moved by the petitioners under provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been dismissed. 2. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction pertaining to survey Nos. 307/1 and 307/4 situated at Village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara. He would further submit that the suit property was partitioned between petitioner No. 1 and Jhaduram. Mr. Dukalha, Punni, Fohara, and Ramkali are heirs of Late Jhaduram. He would also submit that the whereabouts of Ramkali were not known, therefore, she was not arrayed as a defendant in the Civil Suit, but an objection was raised by the defendants in the written statement, particularly in para 18, wherein it is stated that Ramkali has not been arrayed as a defendant. It is also stated that the plaintiffs ought to have arrayed the General Public and the State of Chhattisgarh to seek a declaration of the civil death of Ramkali. Mr Goverdhan would further argue that thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the State of Chhattisgarh and General Public as defendants and to seek a declaration of the civil death of Ramkali. He would also argue that the application was rejected and against the said order WP227 No. 383/2024 was filed, wherein, liberty was granted to the petitioners to revive his prayer by mentioning the facts and other contents. 3 He would also contend that the petitioner moved a fresh application and the same has been rejected by the learned trial Court. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Sharma would submit that Ramkali is not a necessary party. He would further submit that with regard to the declaration as sought by the plaintiffs, they have not properly valued the suit and failed to affix proper Court fees and no amendment has been proposed in this regard. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. appearing for the State would support the order passed by the learned trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. The petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC pursuant to the objection raised by the defendants in their written statement, particularly in para 18. In para 18, the defendants specifically stated that Ramkali has not been arrayed as a defendant. It is also stated that as the whereabouts of Ramkali are not known, the plaintiffs ought to have arrayed General Public as a defendant and they should have sought relief of declaration of the civil death of Ramkali. 7. Though the earlier application moved under the same provisions was rejected by the learned trial Court, in WP227 No. 383 of 2024 liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioners to move a fresh application. 8. The petitioners moved the application pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court and the objection raised by the defendants. The amendment proposed by the petitioners would not change the nature of the suit. 9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the order passed by the 4 learned trial Court is hereby set-aside. The amendment application moved by the petitioners is hereby allowed. The petitioners would be at liberty to carry out necessary amendments before the learned trial Court. The defendants would be at liberty to move an application for consequential amendment(s), if so advised. 10. Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant