1 2026:CGHC:6368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 729 of 2023 1 - Brij Mohan Katare S/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 31 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Purshottam Katare S/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 24 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioners Versus 1 - Laxmi Bai Katare D/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 45 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Saroj Katare D/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 42 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramla Katare D/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 38 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chitralekha D/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 33 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kejal Bai D/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 65 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 6 - Madan Singh S/o- Ghanaram Teli Aged About 55 Years R/o- Near Saint Mary School, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Defendants) --- Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 For Respondent No. 7 : : Mr. Vijay Shankar Soni, Advocate. Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Deputy Govt. Advocate. {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} Order on Board 04/02/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Class -I, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13-A/2017, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by petitioners / plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners/plaintiffs, are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have instituted civil suit for declaration of title, possession and for permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 526/13, renumbered as Khasra No. 70/2, area 1872 sq.ft. situated at village Patpar, Patwari Halka No. 7/10, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). Written statement on behalf of the respondent No. 6-defendant No. 6 has also been filed. Evidence of the plaintiffs was also recorded and the case was fixed for recording defendants' evidence. At that time, respondent /defendant No. 6 filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of CPC (Annexure P-4), for taking documents on record, and intended to file documents, which includes a registered sale-deed dated 06.03.1973 & 18.04.1973, revenue records in the name of Ghanaram B-1 3 year 1999-2000, Khasra of the year 2000-2001, B-1 1999-2000 in the name of Madan Singh, patwari map of the suit land and certified copy of the order dated 24.10.2000 passed by Tahsildar, B-1 and Khasra Panchshala of the Year 2022-23 and original Rin Pustika of respondent No. 6 / defendant No. 6 and original receipt of taxes paid. 3. Learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhatapara (C.G.), vide order dated 27.06.2023, allowed the aforesaid application and the documents filed alongwith this application are taken on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the documents, which have been filed by the Respondent No. 6/defendant No. 6, were affecting the right of the petitioners / plaintiffs, therefore, in order to clarify the position, consequential amendment are required to be made in the plaint, thus, an application for amendment in plaint was filed, in which, three paragraphs, after paragraph 8 of the plaint i.e. 8(A), 8(B) & 8(C) were intended to be incorporated. He submits that the documents, which have been produced by respondent No. 6 / defendant No. 6 and accepted by learned Civil Judge, appears to have been interpolated and fabricated one, thus, to counter the veracity of that documents, the amendments which were proposed in the application were necessary in the plaint, despite that, learned Civil Judge vide its impugned order dated 31.07.2023 rejected the said application. The reasons assigned by the Civil Judge for rejecting the said application that suit is listed at the stage of defendants' evidence and the aforesaid application was filed after closing the plaintiffs' evidence. He submits that the suit is pending since 2017 and it is stated that if the application for amendment in the plaint is allowed, then the defendants would also make an application for consequential amendment. It is submitted that cause of action to file application for amendment arose only after certain documents were placed on record by defendant No. 6 by filing application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of CPC and accepted by learned Civil Judge. He submits that if the plaintiffs does not counter the documents in the plaint and if it is allowed to be admitted in the evidence, then 4 it could definitely prejudice and hamper the suit filed by the plaintiff, thus, rejection of the application is bad in law and the reasons assigned does hold water and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 7 submits that the suit is between private respondents. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 /defendant No. 6 submits that the plaintiffs filed application for amendment in the plaint after closing the plaintiffs' evidence and it has been filed only to delay the trial and the finding recorded by the trial Court is just & proper, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From the perusal of record, it appears that genesis of filing an application for amendment arose only after application filed by respondent No. 6/defendant No. 6 for placing documents on record was allowed by learned Civil Judge. The documents are to be proved by respondent No. 6 / defendant No. 6 and admissibility of the documents has to be judged by learned Civil Judge. In the reply filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to the application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(E) of the CPC filed by defendant No. 6, a specific objection was raised that there is interpolation and fabrication in the documents so filed and learned Civil Judge while allowing the application rejected the submission to be considered at the later stage i.e during the course of defendants' witnesses. As such, there is no necessity to incorporate the proposed amendment to be incorporated in the plaint. If the documents, which have been submitted by defendant No. 6 is duly proved and read in evidence, it may hamper the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs, without there being any pleading to countenance the documents on record. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by learned Civil Jude. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, in the interest of justice, learned Civil Judge ought to have allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the PC for amendment in the plaint filed by petitioners/plaintiffs. 5 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 31.07.2023 is allowed. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC is allowed and the petitioners/plaintiffs are permitted to amend the plaint, as per application so filed, on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.10 18:52:16 +0530