-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 291 of 2026 1 – Vishnudayal, S/o Late Roopchand Agrawal, aged about 81 years, R/o Raghupati Bhawan,Ward No.7,Sakti, Tehsil and Dist - Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Ritesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Vijay Kumar Agrawal, aged about 41 years, R/o Raghupati Bhawan, Ward No.7, Sakti, Tehsil And Dist- Sakti (C.G.) 3 - Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Vijay Kumar Agrawal, aged about 38 years, R/o Raghupati Bhawan, Ward No.7, Sakti, Tehsil And Dist- Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Prashant (Wrongly Mentioned As Pankaj), S/o Late Vijay Kumar Agrawal, aged about 33 years, R/o Raghupati Bhawan, Ward No.7, Sakti, Tehsil And Dist- Sakti (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Shweta Agrawal, D/o Late Vijay Kumar Agrawal, W/o Sonu Agrawal, aged about 34 years, R/o 2/1 Deendayal Puram New Khursipar Near Mini Stadium Ward No.08, Bhilai Dist- Durg (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Shalu Agrawal, D/o Late Vijay Kumar Agrawal, W/o Ashish Agrawal, aged about 32 years, R/o Ghanghor Hotel Palace Road Raigarh Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) 7 - Shivkumar Agrawal, S/o Late Roopchand Agrawal, aged about 70 Years, R/o Ward No.7, Sakti Tehsil And Dist- Sakti (C.G.) 8 - Shyam Sundar Agrawal, S/o Late Roopchand Agrawal, aged about 63 Years, R/o Ward No.7 Sakti Tehsil And Dist- Sakti (C.G.) 9 - Anand Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Roopchand Agrawal, aged about 54 Years, R/o Ward No.7, Sakti Tehsil And Dist- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioners Versus 1 - Ache Ram Sahu, S/o Late Rangu Sahu, aged about 73 years, R/o Purani Basti Rani, Road Korba, Tehsil And District- Korba (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Usha Bai, D/o Pirit Ram Sahu (Mother Late Chanda Bai Sahu), aged about 53 years, R/o Budhwari Korba Tehsil- And Dist- Korba (C.G.) 3 - Ram Vilas Sahu, S/o Pirit Ram Sahu (Mother Late Chanda Bai Sahu), aged about 52 years, R/o Chhuri Tehsil- Katghora Dist- Korba (C.G.) -2- 4 - Smt Ratna Sahu, D/o Pirit Ram Sahu (Mother Late Chanda Bai Sahu), aged about 50 years, R/o Sendri Pali, Tehsil Kartala Dist- Korba (C.G.) (Defendant No 1 (C) 5 - Smt Durga Bai, W/o Late Manharan Sahu, aged about 50 years, R/o Jamnipali Tehsil and Dist- Korba (C.G.) (Defendant No 3 (A) 6 - Mili Sahu, D/o Late Manharan Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Jamnipali Tehsil And Dist- Korba (C.G.) (Defendant No 3 (B) 7 - Harsh Sahu, S/o Late Manharan Sahu, aged about 29 years, R/o Jamnipali Tehsil And Dist- Korba (C.G.) (Defendant No 3 © 8 - Rinki Sahu, D/o Late Manharan Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/o Jamnipali Tehsil And Dist- Korba (C.G.) 9 - Rajkumar Sahu, S/o Late Manharan Sahu, aged about 25 years, R/o Jamnipali Tehsil And Dist- Korba (C.G.) 10 – Dilharan, S/o Late Fatteram, aged about 55 years, R/o Purani Basti Near Sohan Talkies Jamnipali Tehsil And Dist- Korba (C.G.) 11 - Ram Ratan, S/o Cheduram (Wife Late Smt. Gayatri), aged about 50 years, R/o Bhumiya Tehsil Katghora Dist- Korba (C.G.) 12 - Premlata Sahu, D/o Ram Ratan (Mother Late Smt. Gayatri), aged about 30 Years, R/o Bhumiya Tehsil- Katghora Dist- Korba (C.G.) 13 - Hemlata Sahu, D/o Ram Ratan (Mother Late Smt. Gayatri), aged about 28 years, R/o Bhumiya Tehsil- Katghora Dist- Korba (C.G.) 14 - Manoj Sahu, S/o Ram Ratan (Mother Late Smt. Gayatri), aged about 25 years,R/o Bhumiya Tehsil Katghora Dist- Korba (C.G.) 15 - Rani Sahu, D/o Ram Ratan (Mother Late Smt. Gayatri), aged about 23 years, R/o Bhumiya Tehsil - Katghora Dist- Korba (C.G.) 16 - Tara Bai, D/o Late Rangu Sahu, W/o Roopsaay Sahu, aged about 69 years, R/o Pahariya Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 17 - Neera Bai, D/o Late Rangu Sahu, W/o Nilambar Sahu, aged about 63 years, R/o Jawahar Colony Tehsil Kharsiya Dist- Raigarh (C.G.) 18 – Yogendra, S/o Late Kriparam Sahu (Mother Late Smt. Shakuntala Sahu, aged about 42 years, R/o Tulsi Nagar Tehsil And Dist- Korba (C.G.) 19 – Radhika, D/o Late Kriparam Sahu (Mother Late Smt. Shakuntala Sahu), aged about 37 years, R/o Tulsi Nagar, Korba Tehsil And Dist- Korba (C.G.) 20 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector Dist- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocate. For Respondents : None. -3- Hon’ble Justice Shri Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 12/03/2026 This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2021 allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) seeking amendment in the plaint. 2. Facts in short: On 14.07.2021 the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for declaration of title of the suit property jointly in his favour along with respondents No. 2 to 19; for declaration of his title over 1/2 of the original property and over 1/6th of the remaining half of the original property as the legal heir of late Smt. Budhwara Bai; also for declaration of registered sale deed dated 26.11.2017 as invalid; and also for restraining the petitioners herein from adversely affecting the possession of respondents No. 1 to 19 over the suit property. Written statement was also filed by the defendants i.e. the petitioners herein and respondents No. 2 to 19 on 16.04.2022. After written statement being filed, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint, on 15.01.2025 which was duly replied on 22.02.2025. 3. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties through their counsel, by order dated 13.02.2026, allowed the application for amendment, and it is that which is under challenge in this petition. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record including the order impugned. -4- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is illegal, arbitrary and perverse, and therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that the issue raised by way of amendment was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing the Civil Suit but he failed to raise it at that time, and he even did not assign any reason to demonstrate as to what prevented him from raising the same then. He submits that the amendment would change the nature of the suit itself and therefore the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the documents on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any legal error in allowing the amendment sought for by the plaintiff. The amendment has been allowed being necessary to do justice and to ensure that mere delay in seeking the same does not defeat justice. Learned trial Court has also imposed cost of Rs. 2000/- for filing such application with delay. One of the essentials to be kept in mind while considering the amendment in a Civil Suit is justice being subserved and the Courts should adopt a liberal approach for the effective adjudication of the case and preventing multiplicity of repetitive litigation arising from the same cause of action. If viewed as such, the order impugned allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, and permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint appears to be fully justified and does not overreach the law holding the field dealing with amendment in the pleadings. Amendments generally should not be treated as an obstacle if they are necessary for determining the real controversy, provided they do not cause injustice to the other side or change the suit's -5- nature. This being the position, order impugned appears to be fully justified and warrants no interference in this petition particularly while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. 7. In this view of the matter, the petitioner being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge J/Ashish ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.17 15:22:18 +0530