1 2025:CGHC:33368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 166 of 2023  Raja Ram S/o Ramdhun Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Jagdish S/o Late Balwant Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, Ward No. 15, Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, District Lormi Chhattisgarh 2. Tirath Ram S/o Late Balwant Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, Ward No. 15, Lormi, Tahsil Lormi, District Lormi Chhattisgarh..Plaintiffs 3. Narbadiya D/o Late Ramdhun Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Damapur, Chhahan, Tahsil Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Defendant No. 2 4. Gangotri Bai W/o Late Ramdhun Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh..Defendant No.3 5. Jamuna Bai D/o Late Balwant Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Ramhepur, Navrangpur, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh..Defendant No. 4 6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/defendant No. 1 : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 5 : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16. 07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class II Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 4A/2020 dated SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.18 19:00:09 +0530 2 01.02.2023, whereby an application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was allowed and the defendants were permitted to move an application for consequential amendment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession with regard to the suit property mentioned in the plaint. He would further submit that the defendants filed their written statement. He would also submit that the plaintiffs claimed the right over the property on the basis of a will-deed executed in the year 2014 by one Shyamkali in their favour. He would contend that the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and proposed an amendment to the effect that if the plaintiffs fail to prove the validity of the will-deed dated 06.02.2014, they would be entitled to get 1/4th -1/4th share in the suit property being sons of Late Shyamkali, and also sought relief in this regard. Mr. Patel would further contend that the amendment proposed by the plaintiffs and allowed by the learned trial Court has changed the nature of the suit, and therefore, the learned trial Court committed an error of law in allowing the application. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the plaintiffs, who filed the suit on the basis of the will-deed, proposed an amendment that if they fail to prove the validity of the will-deed, they may be declared the title holder and possession holder of a 1/4th – 1/4th share of the suit property, and further sought a partition. They would further submit that the learned trial Court, after due consideration, allowed the application. They would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 5. In this petition, the petitioner has not pleaded the stage of trial when the application for amendment was moved. The plaintiffs proposed an amendment to the effect that if they fail to prove the validity of the will-deed, even then they have 1/4th – 1/4th right over the suit property being sons of Late Shyamkali. They further sought relief in this regard, including a partition and possession. 6. It appears that the application for amendment was moved at the appropriate stage, and it does not change the nature of the suit, and therefore, the learned trial Court allowed it. Further, the defendants have been granted the liberty to move an application for consequential amendment. 7. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and reasons assigned by the learned trial Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 01.02.2023. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant