1 2025:CGHC:52864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 602 of 2025 1 - Gajanan Sinha S/o Late Shri Bhuwan Sinha Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Arjuni, Tahsil And Distt. - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Parmanand Sinha S/o Late Shri Bhuwan Lal Sinha Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Arjuni, Tahsil And Distt. - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - Arvind Sinha S/o Shri Shyamlal Sinha Aged About 55 Years R/o Subhesundar Villa, Yash Vihar Motinagar House No. 1 Y.F. 05 Boriya Road Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager State Bank Of India, Dhamtari Branch, Distt. - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Branch Sambalpur, Distt. - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondents Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.10.30 14:27:31 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For Respondents No.2 and 3 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No.43A of 2022 by which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC <led by the petitioners/plainti=s was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/plainti=s <led a suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration and permanent injunction for disputed amount of late Sunderlal Sinha with a prayer that amount should be disbursed in accordance with the will dated 22.4.2019 on the ground that defendant No.1 Arvind Sinha without any knowledge of the plainti=s with the collusion of defendants No.2 and 3 have misappropriated the amount. He submits that when the written statement was <led, the plainti=s came to know that while late Sunderlal Sinha was unwell and was con<ned to bed, respondent No.1/defendant No.1 Arvind Sinha took out the ATM Card and withdrew huge amount from the bank account of late Sunderlal Sinha and those facts are 3 required to be brought on record. For that purpose, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was <led, which was rejected by the impugned order holding that it will change the nature of the suit and it has been <led after the trial has started. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned order is bad in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case as the amendment will not change the nature of the suit and it has been very categorically stated in the application that when the written statement was <led, the petitioners/plainti=s came to know about the fact that the amount held in the bank account of late Sunderlal Sinha was withdrawn by defendant No.1 Arvind Sinha and, therefore, it cannot be said that the application was <led without any due diligence. 4. Per contra, Shri Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 supports the impugned order and submits that the fact which the petitioners/plainti=s want to bring on record by way of amendment was within the knowledge from the inception and since those facts have not been pleaded it would de<nitely change the nature of the suit and the application has been <led after the trial has started. Therefore, the <nding recorded by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application does not require any interference. 4 5. Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners/plainti=s submits that the evidence has not started yet, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial has begun. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 8. Be that as it may, from perusal of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC it appears that certain facts, which came to the knowledge of the petitioners/plainti=s after the written statement was <led, were being brought by way of amendment in the plaint. Accordingly, prayer clause was also being sought for amendment. Of course, the learned Trial Court has stated that it would change the nature of the suit and it has not been <led after the trial has begun without any due diligence, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the amendment sought to be made in the body of the plaint would involve certain factual scenario, which the defendants would have all rights to rebut. Making a pleading in the written statement would not ipso facto mean proof of the particular fact. The petitioners/plainti=s are required to prove the fact by way of leading evidence. From the application, it appears that the amendment was being sought after the written statement was <led. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the application could have been 5 allowed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is hereby allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000 (Five Thousand) to be paid to respondent No.1/defendant No.1 Arvind Sinha. The amendment shall be carried out as per time granted by the learned Trial Court after the next date of hearing. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 Arvind Sinha would be at liberty to <le consequential amendment. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal