1 2025:CGHC:42323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 825 of 2025 1. Nafeesa Bano W/o Imran Aged About 36 Years R/o Solda Traders, Main Road Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Petitioner/ Defendant No. 1) 2. Mohammad Imran S/o Musa Bhai Parekh Aged About 39 Years R/o Solda Traders, Main Road Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Petitioner/ Defendant No. 2) 3. Mohammad Junaid S/o Musa Bhai Parekh Aged About 42 Years R/o Tauhid Traders, Main Road Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Petitioner/ Defendant No. 11) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Mohammad Idris Parekh S/o Late Musa Bhai Parekh Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Petrol Pump, Main Road, Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent/ Plaintiff) 2. Yunus Parekh S/o Late Musa Bhai Parekh Aged About 63 Years R/o Masjid Lane, Main Road, Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent/ Defendant No. 3) 3. Smt. Mehrun Bano W/o Usman Bhai Kamdar Aged About 61 Years R/o Raja Nagar, Near Jamanatkhana, Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent/ Defendant No. 4) 4. Smt. Fatma Bano W/o Mohammad Asif Motiwala Aged About 59 Years R/o Flat No. 501, 5th Floor (Rubi), Alnoor Residency, New Colony Road, Rander, District Surat, Gujrat (Respondent/ Defendant No. 5) 5. Ali Mohammad Parekh S/o Late Musa Bhai Parekh Aged About 57 Years R/o Main Road, Keskal, Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent/ Defendant No. 6) 6. Mohammad Rafiq S/o Late Musa Bhai Parekh Aged About 55 Years R/o M.R. Parekh Hardware, Main Road, Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent/ Defendant No. 7) 7. Smt. Raziya Bano Nathani W/o Late Aslam Nathani Aged About 52 Years R/o Behind Treasury Office, Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent/ Defendant No. 8) 8. Smt. Zarina Bano W/o Mohammad Farooq Kadariya Aged About 48 Years SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.26 10:17:38 +0530 2 R/o Otel Tier Office, Gandhi Nagar, District Nabrangpur, Odisha (Respondent/ Defendant No. 9) 9. Mohammad Javed Parekh S/o Late Musa Bhai Parekh Aged About 46 Years R/o Main Road, Surdogar, Keskal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent/ Defendant No. 10) 10. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners/defendants No. : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate 1, 2 & 11 For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21. 08.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition assailing the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 12/2020, whereby an application moved by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been allowed. 2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for declaration of title, partition, possession, permanent injunction, and cancellation of the sale- deed dated 31.07.2015 pertaining to land bearing survey No. 18/2C admeasuring 0.138 hectare, situated at Keshkal, Patwari Circle No. 06, Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon. 3. The defendants filed their written statement; the learned trial Court framed issues; the parties led their evidence; thereafter, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was moved by the plaintiff to rectify the area of the suit land from 0.138 hectare to 0.238 hectare. The learned trial Court, treating it as a typographical mistake, allowed the application. Against the said order, the petitioners have preferred this petition. 4. Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the objection with regard to the area of the suit property was specifically raised in the written statement, which was filed on 12.02.2021, 3 but the application has been moved for amendment on 27.05.2025, at a belated stage and the same would change the nature of the suit, therefore, the learned Court below ought to have rejected the application. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 6. Heard. 7. Considering the fact that there was a typographical mistake in the area of the suit property as the plaintiff mentioned it as 0.138 hectares instead of 0.238 hectares, the application was allowed. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1 in paras 71.3, 71.3.1, 71.3.2, 71.4, 71.4.1, 71.4.2, 71.4.3 and 71.4.4 held as under:- “71.3 The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: 71.3.1 If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, 71.3.2 To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.” 9. Considering the fact that the learned trial Court has allowed the plaintiff to 4 rectify the typographical mistake and it will not change the nature of the suit, in my opinion, the learned trial Court rightly allowed the application for amendment moved by the plaintiff. 10. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant