1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1189 of 2025 1 - Raj Agrawal S/o Late Shri Niranjan Lal Agrawal Aged About 45 Years (Wrongly Typed As 42 Years), R/o House No. 3, Tulsi Marg Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jawahar Lal Agrawal S/o Late Chandagiya Ram Agrawal Aged About 61 Years R/o Tulsi Marg, Gupta Gali, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Kamla Devi Agrawal W/o Jawahar Lal Agrawal Aged About 57 Years R/o Tulsi Marg, Gupta Gali, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shailesh Agrawal S/o Jawahar Lal Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o Tulsi Marg, Gupta Gali, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Jitendra Kumar Bhai Patel, S/o Ramji Bhai Patel (Since Deleted) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pranjpe Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 31.01.2026 1. The learned 1st Additional District Judge, Korba (C.G.) by order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. Class A (DJ/ADJ)/5/2023 rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.02.04 16:31:47 +0530 2 2. Mr. Pranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff who instituted the suit seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property which has been duly and properly described in the plaint. The written statement has also been filed by the defendants. In order to incorporate certain factual aspects, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by adding paragraphs 2(a) and 3(a). By the proposed amendment, the petitioner intended to plead that the plaintiff and defendants are members of a joint family residing together in one room and that household expenses have been jointly borne since the year 2006. The proposed amendment further discloses that the father of the plaintiff constituted a partnership firm in the year 1977 along with Niranjan Lal Agrawal, Bajrang Lal Agrawal and Jawahar Lal Agrawal as partners. The firm was run as a partnership concern and was dissolved in the year 1998 with the consent of all partners by executing a deed of dissolution. Thereafter, the firm was allegedly run as a proprietorship concern by Niranjan Lal Agrawal from the suit house. The said application was rejected by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proposed amendment was necessary for the effective and proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties on merits. It is further submitted that the nature of the suit would not be altered by the proposed amendment and that it merely elaborates the existing pleadings. It is also argued that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-defendants if the amendment were allowed as they would have sufficient opportunity to file consequential pleadings. He submits that the learned 1st Additional District Judge committed an error of law and jurisdiction in rejecting the application warranting interference by this Court. 3 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is submitted that the suit has reached the stage of evidence, issues having already been framed and therefore the trial has commenced. The amendment application was filed belatedly without any explanation as to why the facts sought to be incorporated could not be pleaded prior to commencement of trial. In the absence of any pleading or material indicating due diligence, the application is barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the writ petition deserves dismissal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that the suit was instituted in the year 2023, the written statement was filed and issues were framed on 19.06.2025 whereafter the matter was fixed for recording of evidence. Thus, it is evident that the trial had commenced prior to filing of the amendment application. In such circumstances, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates that the party seeking amendment must demonstrate that, despite due diligence, the amendment could not be sought before commencement of trial. A bare perusal of the amendment application reveals that there is no averment whatsoever regarding due diligence. The application merely sets out the proposed amendment and seeks its allowance. The learned 1st Additional District Judge, while rejecting the application has recorded a finding that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and that the facts sought to be incorporated were within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit. The Court below further noted that issues had already been framed and found no merit in the application. 7. This Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned 1st Additional District Judge. The order impugned reflects proper appreciation of 4 the material available on record. No illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error can be attributed to the learned 1st Additional District Judge in passing the impugned order. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order granted earlier, if any, stands discharged. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari