-1- 2025:CGHC:26553 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 950 of 2023 Triyugi Narayan S/o Shri Ramnarayan Aged About 55 Years Occupation- Service, R/o Village- Jawalpur, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ramratan S/o Ghasiram Aged About 65 Years Caste- Bind (Biyar), R/o Village, Jawalpur Para, Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhagatram S/o Ghasiram Aged About 55 Years Caste- Bind (Biyar), R/o Village, Jawalpur Para, Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kalicharan S/o Ghasiram Aged About 42 Years Caste- Bind (Biyar), R/o Village, Jawalpur Para, Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Bhagtin Bai Wd/o Ramnarayan Aged About 70 Years Caste- Agariya, R/o Village, Jawalpur Para, Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tribhuwan S/o Ramnarayan Aged About 46 Years Caste- Agariya, R/o Village, Jawalpur Para, Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Khagesh S/o Ramnarayan Aged About 46 Years Caste- Agariya, R/o Village, Jawalpur Para, Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7 - Rewti Bai D/o Ramnarayan Caste- Agariya, R/o Village, Jawalpur Para, Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 8 - Kunti Bai D/o Ramnarayan Aged About 34 Years Caste- Agariya, R/o Village, Jawalpur Para, Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 9 - Vishnu Kumar S/o Ramnarayan Aged About 24 Years Caste- Agariya, R/o Village, Jawalpur Para, Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 10 - Kusum Bai D/o Ramnarayan Aged About 50 Years Caste- Agariya, R/o Village, Jawalpur Para, Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 11 - Kumodni Bai Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Mohadih, Tahsil- Akaltara,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 12 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 13 - Kamlesh S/o Ishwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Caste Bind, R/o Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 14 - Saraswati D/o Ishwar Aged About 42 Years R/o Caste Bind, R/o Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 15 - Lalit S/o Ishwar Aged About 41 Years R/o Caste Bind, R/o Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 16 - Chandrawali D/o Ishwar Aged About 39 Years R/o Caste Bind, R/o Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 17 - Budhwara Aged About 20 Years R/o Caste Bind, R/o Nagpura, Tahsil- Baloda,, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.06.2025 1) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Akaltara, in Civil Suit No. 66-A/2015 (Trilok Trilyugi v. Ramratan and others), whereby an application moved by the petitioner under -3- Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was rejected. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and further declaration that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 162-A/2002 is not binding upon him, along with a prayer for injunction. He submitted that during the pendency of the civil suit, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, wherein he claimed a right over the suit property on the principle of adverse possession. He further submitted that the learned trial Court rejected the said application. He contended that the amendment proposed by the petitioner/plaintiff does not change the nature of the suit, and though it was moved at a belated stage, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Ramteke opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4) Heard. 5) Admittedly, an application for amendment was moved by the petitioner, seeking to add factual aspects, including a claim of right over the suit property under the principle of adverse possession, though there were no such pleadings in the original plaint. The amendment proposed by the petitioner changes the nature of the suit; therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the application. -4- 6) Accordingly, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim