1 2025:CGHC:49927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 662 of 2021 1 - Dhurandhar Builders And Developers Through Partner - Shri Keshav Dhurandhar, R/o. Opposite State Bank Colony, Raipur, Sundar Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Parasram Markam S/o Shri Laxman Markam, R/o. Plot No. 20 - A, Krishna Sakha Sahakari Ghirhanirman Samiti Maryadit, Daganiya, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Sakha Sahakari Ghirhanirman Samiti Maryadit, Raipur, Registration No. C.R/ R.P.R - 91, 82-83, Roohinipuram, Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Competent Authority - Authorized Officer. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashwat Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 07.10.2025 1. This writ petition has been challenging the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge Class-1 Raipur District- Raipur (CG) in the matter of Dhurandhar Builders And Developers Through Partner - Shri Keshav Dhurandhar VS. Krishna Sakha Sahakari Ghirhanirman Samiti Maryadit whereby the application filed under order 6 Rule 17 by the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed. 2 2. Facts of the case which emerges from the pleadings is that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking declaration and possession, praying that the sale deed dated 26.03.1998 executed by respondent/defendant no. 2 in favour of respondent/defendant no. 1 be declared illegal, null and void. The plaintiff claimed ownership over Khasra Nos. 173/1 and 173/3 situated at Patwari Halka No. 104/35, Revenue Circle Raipur–1, District Raipur (C.G.). Respondent no. 2, a Housing Society, was in possession of adjoining Khasra Nos. 172/2 and 174/16 and sold Plot No. 20-A from Khasra No. 172/2 to respondent no. 1 through the impugned sale deed. On the plaintiff’s request, demarcation proceedings were conducted (Case No. 9/A- 12/2009–10), wherein the Tehsildar, by order dated 05.12.2011, found that several plots, including Plot No. 20-A, actually fall within Khasra Nos. 173/1 and 173/3 belonging to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff asserted that the possession of respondent no. 1 is illegal. Despite issuance of legal notice dated 24.02.2012, no response was received, leading to the institution of the suit. Respondent no. 1 denied the plaint allegations, while respondent no. 2 contended that the original owners of Khasra Nos. 173/1 and 173/3 had executed agreements to sell and powers of attorney in its favour in the 1980s, and that layout plans were prepared and plots allotted accordingly. It was also stated that respondent no. 2 had filed civil suits for specific performance regarding the same property, both of which were dismissed. During the proceedings, respondent no. 2’s amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed, whereafter the plaintiff filed a consequential amendment application under the same provision. The learned trial court, by the impugned order, rejected the plaintiff’s application without assigning any specific or cogent reason. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil suit was filed seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 26.03.1998, executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1, in respect of property comprising Khasra No. 173/1, part of Khasra No. 173/3 admeasuring 1,000 square feet (Plot No. 20- A), and Khasra No. 172/2, be declared null and void. A further relief was also sought for delivery of vacant possession of the said property. He submits that the written statement on behalf of defendant No. 2 was filed denying the averments made in the plaint. Subsequently, defendant No. 2 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the written statement, which was allowed by the learned trial court. Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for consequential amendment in the plaint, which was rejected by the impugned order. It is contended that the amendment sought by the petitioner was merely consequential to the amendment incorporated by defendant No. 2 in the written statement. Therefore, the learned trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s application. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that although the application was filed under the guise of a consequential amendment, the plaintiff/petitioner sought to introduce new facts which would alter the nature of the suit. Hence, the trial court rightly rejected the same. It is further submitted that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot enter into the merits of the case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 6. It is not in dispute that defendant No. 2 filed an application for amendment in the written statement. Perusal of the said application reveals that substantial amendments were made, particularly by inserting paragraph Nos. 4-A, 4-B, and additional paragraphs after 8-A and 8-E. The said amendment was allowed by the learned trial court on 17.07.2018. 7. It appears that, as a consequence thereof, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Though certain additional factual averments have been sought to be introduced, perusal of the amendment application does not indicate that the same would change the nature or character of the suit. The proposed amendment merely brings certain factual aspects on record, which are required to be proved by evidence. 8. In view thereof, the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to defendant No. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff shall carry out the amendment within 15 days from the next date of hearing before the learned trial court. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.10.10 17:26:43 +0530