1 2025:CGHC:48416 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 800 of 2025 1 - Ashok Prasad Chouksey S/o Late Jagannath Prasad Chouksey Aged About 71 Years R/o House No.185, Opposite City School And Nibha Mitra Nursing Home, Gurunanak Chowk, Torwa Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant No.01). 2 - Sandeep Kumar Chouksey S/o Ashok Prasad Chouksey Aged About 39 Years R/o House No.C/21, Near Vinayak Garden, Vinayak Vihar, Century Colony, D.D.U. Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No.02). ... Petitioners versus 1 - Sumit Chouksey S/o Late Rajendra Chouksey Aged About 35 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o Gurunanak Chowk, Torwa Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.01). 2 - Smt. Sunita Chouksey W/o Late Rajendra Chouksey Aged About 54 Years R/o Gurunanak Chowk, Torwa Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintiff No.02). 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendant No.03). ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. P. R. Patel, Advocate For Res. No. 3. : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 19/09/2025 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 29.07.2025, passed by the 4th 2 Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge, Senior Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 48/S/2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/ respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed a civil suit for the declaration of half share of the house and land which was constructed upon Khasra No. 727/13, admeasuring area 1436 Sq. ft. and abbadi land bearing Khasra No. 725/1 which is situated at village Torwa, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). A further prayer was also made that the order dated 21.09.2000 passed in Revenue Case No. 786/A-6/1999-2000 and subsequent order dated 23.04.2018 passed in Revenue Case No. 990/A-6/2017-2018 by Superintendent of the Land Record, Bilaspur be declared as null and void and further seeking relief of permanent injunction. During pendency of the Civil Suit, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/plaintiff have filed an application for amendment in the plaint, which was allowed by the learned trial Court and in pursuance thereof, the amendment was also incorporated in the plaint. Thereafter, an application for consequential amendment in the written statement under Order 6 Rules 17 of CPC was filed by the defendants/petitioners, which was rejected by the impugned order by the learned Civil Judge, against which instant writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants No. 1 & 2 would submit that the amendment sought for was only in the consequential in nature in order to rebut the pleadings made by the respondent No.1 & 2/plaintiffs in their plaint. If the defendants/petitioners are not granted to rebut the averments so incorporated, it would be deemed to be deprived from the opportunity to deny the averements made in the plaint after amendment under Order 8 Rules 3 of CPC, therefore, the proposed amendment, may be permitted to be incorporated in the written statement filed before the trial Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2 while 3 opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/plaintiffs filed an application for amendment in the plaint, which was allowed and pursuance thereof, amendment is incorporated in the plaint. From perusal of the application of consequential amendment in the written statement appended with this writ petition clearly goes to show that if such amendment is not permitted to be incorporated in the written statement, then it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners/defendants. As such, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the application for consequential amendment in the written statement. 7. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.07.2025 is set aside. Now, the defendants/petitioners are permitted to carry out the consequential amendment in the written statement before the trial Court, as mentioned in the said application, on the next date of hearing or any further date to be fixed by the learned Civil Judge. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.29 13:44:45 +0530