1 2026:CGHC:14152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 349 of 2026 1 - Awadh Bihari S/o Lt. Runguram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Lt. Pokruram Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Krishnapal S/o Lt. Sanguram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Lokesh S/o Lt. Govindram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Neeraj S/o Lt. Govindram Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Radhika S/o Lt. Govindram Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Bhuvan S/o Lt. Khadhuram Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7 - Jeevanlal S/o Lt. Khaduram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 8 - Prakash S/o Lt. Khaghruram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.04.07 18:47:53 +0530 2 9 - Pramod S/o Lt. Khagharuram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 10 - Raju S/o Lt. Bhukhanlal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 11 - Budesh Kumar S/o Lt. Bhukhanlal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 12 - Punibai S/o Lt. Widow Of Bhukhanlal Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 13 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh By Chhattisgarh Government ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. F. S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 12.02.2026, passed by the learned 4th District Judge, Janjgir in Civil Suit No. A/21/2025, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the plaint was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defendant No.1 before the learned trial court. The respondent no.1, Santosh Kumar prosecuting a civil suit before the learned trial Court for declaration of title, permanent injunction and in the alternative partition of the suit property to the extent of his ¼ share. The petitioner/defendant no.1 filed his written 3 statement on 04.09.2025, and denied the claim of the respondent no. 1/ plaintiff by pleading that the there was a oral partition with respect to the suit property of schedule -B along with the other lands of their houses between all the four sons of late Abhayram. They also pleaded the property obtained by the respective member of the joint family and denied the entitlement of the relief as claimed in the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed an application for amendment in the plaint with respect to the the explanation to the reply submitted by the defendant in their written statement. 4. He would further submit that the issues have been framed and affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 in the form of examination in chief of the plaintiff’s witnesses have been filed. Thereafter, the amendment application has been filed which is not bonafide and cannot be allowed. The proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and after starting the evidence the same cannot be permitted to be carried out, yet the application is allowed by the learned trial Court, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the application of the respondent no.1/plaintiff may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. From the perusal of the plaint, written statement and the amendment application filed by the plaintiff it transpires that the plaintiff is claiming a declaration and partition of his ¼ share over 4 the suit property initially held by Abheram. Abheram had four sons, namely Pokruram, Runguram, Khadhruram, and Bhukhanlal. All of them are presently dead. The plaintiff Santosh Kumar is the son of Pokruram, and the defendants are the sons of the other three brothers. He is claiming that there was no partition of the property of their father and he is claiming partition to the extent of his share. The defendants in their written statement denied and pleaded about the earlier partition of the property between the family members and pleaded in their written statement that since the property has already been partitioned, the plaintiff cannot claimed the title or partition again of the suit property. 7. After filing the written statement, certain new facts have been pleaded in the written statement of the defendant with respect to the land of Kharsra No. 3904/02Ka and its partition and alienation of its part to Dr. Narendra Kumar and he sought additional pleading in the plaint about the acquisition of the land of Khasra No. 3904/02Ka and its sale by Runguram to Dr. Narendra and construction of the house by the defendants 1 to 5 on the remaining land of Khasra No. 3904/02 ka. The proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff appears to be clarificatory in nature and does not change the very nature of the suit. It further appears that the proposed amendment is consequential in nature with that of the pleadings made in the written statement of the defendants. Though the issues have been framed and the 5 plaintiff's evidence has been recorded but considering the nature of amendment sought by the plaintiff in his plaint, it cannot be said that the application for amendment was filed at the belated stage or it would change the very nature of the suit. The learned trial court after considering that the proposed amendment was necessary for just decision of the case has allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to amend his plaint. 8. From perusal of the entire material annexed with the petition, this Court does not find any palpable infirmity or jurisdictional error which warrants interference in this present writ petition and to set aside the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok