1 2025:CGHC:583 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1193 of 2024  Prakashchand Jain S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Bhandarpur, Tahsil - Khairagarh District - Rajnandgaon Now K.C.G. Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sukaliya Bai D/o Late Shri Surit Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chichola, Tahsil - Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Now K.C.G. Chhattisgarh 2. Bhupendra S/o Sukdev Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Bhandarpur, Tahsil - Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Now K.C.G. Chhattisgarh 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Rajnandgaon Now K.C.G. Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06 .01.2025 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition against the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in Civil Suit No. 16A/2022 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, whereby an application moved by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2. Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, ownership and permanent injunction over account number 345, survey No. 253/1, admeasuring 2 1.2950 hectares. He would further submit that during the pendency of the Civil Suit before the filing of the written statement by the defendants, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. He would also submit that by filing the application for amendment, the plaintiff claimed right over the suit property by law of prescription and also proposed subsequent developments. It is contended that the learned trial Court rejected the application. It is further contended that an application under Section 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was moved by the defendants before Tahsildar and the same was allowed. It is stated that the effect and operation of the order of the Tahsildar has been stayed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Khairagarh vide order dated 04.05.2023. He would contend that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application for amendment with regard to subsequent developments. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has taken in- consistent pleading in the amendment application. He would further submit that the plaintiff has sought relief of declaration of title and ownership over the suit property in the plaint, whereas, in the amendment, he has sought relief of ownership by way of adverse possession. He would also submit that a person cannot be owner and title holder on one hand and owner by adverse possession on the other hand; therefore, the amendment application was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. So far as the amendment sought by the petitioner with regard to adverse possession is concerned, it has rightly been rejected by the learned trial 3 Court, but at the same time, the learned Court below ought to have allowed the application for amendment pertaining to subsequent developments, whereby, the plaintiff has stated that an application under Section 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was moved by the defendants before the Tahsildar, which was allowed and stay is operating in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Khairagarh. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by respective Advocates and the documents placed on the record, this petition is partly allowed. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the amendment application with regard to adverse possession but the amendment application to bring subsequent developments ought to have been allowed by the Court below. 7. Consequently, the amendment application with regard to subsequent developments moved by the plaintiff is hereby allowed. The trial Court is directed to grant sufficient time to the petitioner to carry out the necessary amendment in the plaint. Sd Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant