1 2025:CGHC:20796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 245 of 2022 1. Ramkeshwar S/o Late Lalit Aged About 40 Years By Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village Barbaspur Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Shrinath S/o Late Lalit Aged About 35 Years By Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village Barbaspur Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Rangoli Wd/o Late Lalit Aged About 65 Years By Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village Barbaspur Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sukhmen D/o Nanka (W/o Shivprasad) Aged About 45 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village Barbaspur, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 06-05-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Fourth Civil Judge, Class-I, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 118-A/2018 dated 28.03.2022 whereby the 2 application moved by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs submits that petitioners filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that petitioners are the only legal representatives of the original land owner, namely, Nankaram. He further submits that respondent No. 1/ defendant No. 1 filed written statement and learned trial Court framed issues. He contends that revision was pending before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue for mutation filed by the defendant No. 1 and it was allowed vide order dated 30.12.2017. He further contends that name of defendant No. 1 was mutated in the revenue records and subsequently, possession of the suit property was taken over, therefore, cause of action arose in favor of petitioners to seek relief of possession and application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was moved before the learned trial Court. He argues that the learned trial Court rejected the application without assigning sufficient reasons. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/ defendant No. 1 submits that order was passed by the Board of Revenue on 30.12.2017 whereas application for amendment was moved on 06.01.2022 before the trial court without explaining the delay, therefore, application for amendment was rightly rejected. 4) Learned State counsel supports the order passed by the learned trial Court. 5) Heard. 6) It appears that during pendency of the suit, possession of suit property was taken over by defendant No. 1 pursuant to order dated 30.12.2017 passed by Board of Revenue, therefore, plaintiffs moved application 3 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC proposing relief of possession. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, after dispossession, plaintiffs/ petitioners rightly sought relief of possession and the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 8) In view of the above, the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set-aside and application moved by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC stands allowed. Learned trial Court is directed to permit the petitioners/ plaintiffs to carry out the necessary amendment in the plaint. 9) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya AJINKYA PANSARE Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.05.07 13:00:59 +0530