2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 319 of 2025 1 - Shivsahay Soni S/o Dhannulal Soni Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Jamha, Tehsil And District Mungeli, C.G. 2 - Sunil Kumar Soni S/o Dhannulal Soni Aged About 55 Years R/o Sonar Para Mahamai Ward Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli C.G. 3 - Shivgopal Soni S/o Dhannulal Soni Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Jamha, Tehsil And District Mungeli C.G ---- Petitioners Versus 1 - Ramesh Soni S/o Ramadhar Soni Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Jamha, Tehsil And District Mungeli, C.G. 2 - Mahesh Soni S/o Ramadhar Soni Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Jamha, Tehsil And District Mungeli, C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Mungeli C.G. Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Ranjan Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : None appeared. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 31/01/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 02/03/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the I Civil Judge Class-II, Mungeli, District - Mungeli in Civil Suit No. 16/अ/2023 by which, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that repondent Nos. 1 and 2 happen to be plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of suit property properly described in the ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.16 17:40:13 +0530 -2- plaint. The petitioners being defendants also filed their written statement. In order to clarify the pleadings and being important facts, an application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioners whereby additional paragraph - 3(A) prayed to be incorporated by way of amendment with the pleadings that the petitioners have obtained the title over the suit property on account of adverse possession. The said application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by the impugned order. He further submits that the proposed amendment is necessary for the adjudication of the case on merits and no prejuidce would be caused to the respondents/plaintiffs. Thus, the learned Civil Judge committed an error and illegality of law in rejecting the application. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the suit was filed in the year 2023 and written statement was also filed in the year 2024 and for all this time, no amendment application was filed by the petitioners. He submits that trial of the suit has began and affidavit of the respondents under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC has already been filed. Thus, the application for amendment is hit by proviso to order 6 rule 17 CPC. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the State submits that the dispute is between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Suit was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, seeking the declaration of the suit property which was described in the plaint. Suit was filed in the year - 2023 and written statement was filed in the year 2024. The amendment application was filed in the year 2024 itself. By that time, the issues has already been framed and perusal of the impugned order; it appears that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) have already been filed their affidavit under order 8 rule 4 CPC. The perusal of the application does not disclose that despite of due diligence, the application for amendment could not be filed -3- before the commencement of the trial. Thus, such finding has been recorded by the learned Civil Judge while rejecting the application. The petitioners were trying to suggest that they have denied the title on the strength of adverse possession. This fact could have been known to the petitioners from the beginning of the suit and they failed to file the application for amendment in time. Thus, this Court does not find any irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Thus, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 6. All the pending applications are dismissed. 7. Interim Order, if any, shall stand discharged. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish