1 2025:CGHC:44866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 868 of 2025  Jiyalal S/o Gambhira, Aged About 55 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Singri, Police Station - Ramkola, Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Vipta Ram S/o Dhansai, Aged About 40 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Singri, Police Station - Ramkola, Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03. 09.2025 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 20.06.2025 and 18.07.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 55-A/2003 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pratappur, District – Surajpur (C.G.), whereby application moved by the defendant No. 1 under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC have been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on 10.02.1994. The defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte. The written statement was filed in the year 2004. Vide order dated 28.02.2006 defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte and High Court vide order dated 25.09.2024 remitted SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.04 16:19:58 +0530 2 back the matter to learned Trial Court. He would further submit that defendant No. 1 moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC on 25.03.2025, wherein he proposed amendment to the effect that the suit property described in Schedule – B was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 pursuant to order of mutation passed on 12.03.1968 and his name was recorded in the revenue record and since then, he is in possession of the property and this fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, but they filed suit after 30 years, and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. Mr. Prajapati would further submit that the written statement was filed in the year 2004 and after 21 years, an application for amendment was moved and thus, it was moved at belated stage and the learned trial Court committed an error of law while allowing that application. 3. With regard to application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, Mr. Prajapati would submit that the defendant No. 1 proposed additional issue to the effect that “Whether the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by limitation ?” and the application moved by the defendant No. 1 has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.07.2025. He would further submit that the application was moved after 21 years; therefore, the order is bad in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 5. Heard. 6. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 10.02.1994. The defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex-party and said order was set-aside by the High Court vide order dated 25.09.2025, and thereafter, defendant No. 1 participated in the proceeding. He moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to demonstrate that suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is barred by limitation and moved application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC to frame additional 3 issue with regard to limitation. The learned trial Court allowed both the applications on the ground that the suit is fixed for plaintiff’s evidence and it is at initial stage. 7. Considering the facts of the case and reasons assigned by learned Trial Court, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the orders. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant