1 2025:CGHC:6195 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 117 of 2025  Anand Kumar Kutare S/o Late Alam Singh Kutare Aged About 44 Years Vimal Traders In Back, Kanhaiyapuri Chowk, Kasaridih, Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Santu Ram Nirmal S/o Ram Dayal Nirmal Aged About 35 Years 193/f, Risali Sector, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Amitabh Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 04/02/2025 1) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit Class A/176/2016 whereby application moved by plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed on the ground it was moved at a belated stage, particularly at the time of final arguments. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff submits that civil suit was filed by plaintiff claiming relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction inter-alia on the ground that the suit property was purchased through registered sale-deed dated 29.03.2008. He further submits that the case was set for final arguments on 17.12.2024 and at that stage, Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.04 14:13:50 +0530 2 application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was moved by the plaintiff on the ground that boundaries of the suit property is not mentioned properly in the plaint. He contends that there was some error with regard to the western direction of boundary and a 20 ft. path was also not described in the plaint. He further contends that the amendment sought by way of the aforementioned application would not change the nature of the suit though it has been moved at a belated stage. He argues that learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that such application could have been moved earlier and no cogent reason has been assigned with regard to delay in the application. 3) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 4) Apparently, the application for amendment in the plaint has been rejected by the Court below only on the ground that it was moved at a belated stage, particularly when the matter was fixed for final arguments. Perusal of the amendment application and the order impugned would reveal that the amendment so proposed by the petitioner would not change the nature of the suit. Evidently, after purchase the suit property through registered sale-deed dated 29.03.2008, an application was moved for correction of boundaries and same was allowed. Thereafter, application was moved to amend the pleadings in the plaint accordingly. 5) Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, application moved by petitioner/ plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC stands allowed, 3 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to the defendant. 6) Petitioner would be at liberty to carry out the necessary amendment on the next date of hearing and on the same date, if matter is set for final argument, no further adjournment will be granted to petitioner/ plaintiff. 7) Accordingly, instant writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya