-1- 2025:CGHC:20795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 157 of 2025 Jayanti Rajwade D/o Shiv Narayan Rajwade Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Kaskela, Tahsil Bhaiyathan Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shiv Narayan S/o Raghunath Rajwade Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Rampyari D/o Shiv Narayan Rajwade Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Siyaram S/o Shiv Narayan Rajwade Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Paras S/o Shiv Narayan Rajwade Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Jagdishpur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 5 - Kamla W/o Devsar, D/o Shiv Narayan Rajwade Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Unchadih, P.S. Basdei, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 6 - Rahul Agrawal S/o Prayag Agrawal Aged About 27 Years R/o Manipur Chowk, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 7 - Gurusevak Singh Bhamra S/o Jeet Singh Bhamra Aged About 43 Years R/o Gurunanak Ward, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 8 - Sukhdev Singh Bhamra S/o Jeet Singh Bhamra Aged About 39 Years R/o Gurunanak Ward, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.05.2025 1) The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has preferred this petition challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court, whereby his application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been rejected. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title, partition, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land described in Schedules A, B, and C of the plaint. He would further submit that during the pendency of the Civil Suit, defendant No. 1 alienated part of the suit land to Rajendra Prasad Sahu and Sohan Ram Rajwade by way of registered sale deeds dated 25.09.2024 and 16.12.2024 respectively. The petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. By way of the proposed amendment, the petitioner proposed a factual description of the land sold and also prayed relief of impleadment of the purchasers, namely Rajendra Prasad Sahu and -3- Sohan Ram, as defendants No. 9 and 10. He would contend that the learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff could have moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead subsequent purchasers. He would also submit that the plaintiff sought the proposed amendment along with the impleadment of subsequent purchasers, therefore, there was no need to move a separate application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. 3) On the other hand, learned counsels for the contesting respondents argued that there is a specific provision for impleadment of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and the petitioner ought to have followed the prescribed procedure. They supported the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, part of the suit property was alienated by defendant No. 1 through registered sale deeds. The petitioner, in response, filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint, wherein he also sought relief to implead subsequent purchasers as defendants No. 9 and 10. 6) The learned trial Court rejected the application solely on the ground that the plaintiff ought to have moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of -4- CPC to implead subsequent purchasers. In the opinion of this Court, the rejection of the amendment application on such a hyper-technical ground is not sustainable in the law. 7) The substance of the petitioner’s application was not merely for impleadment, but also for amendment of the pleadings by including the sale transaction and factual details relating to the alienation. In such cases, where the proposed amendment includes a prayer for impleadment along with necessary pleadings, there is no absolute requirement to file a separate application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, thus, the trial Court has committed an error of law in rejecting the application without considering the substance and intent of the proposed amendment. The subsequent purchasers are proper and necessary parties to the suit. 8) Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. 9) The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to carry out the necessary amendment in the plaint as proposed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim