1 2026:CGHC:8854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 215 of 2026 1 - Lalasingh S/o Buddhu Singh Aged About 45 Years Occupation Cultivator, Caste Gond, R/o Village Bandhauri, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Fulmati D/o Buddhu Singh Aged About 57 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Bandhauri, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh 2 - Sonkunwar D/o Buddhsingh Aged About 47 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Bandhauri, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh 3 - Meenabai D/o Shersingh, W/o Bhavsingh Aged About 25 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Bandhauri, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh 4 - Komal Singh S/o Shersingh Aged About 27 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Nigaura (Vekatnagar), Tahsil Jaithari, District Anuppur (M.P.) 5 - Bhagyawati D/o Buddhusingh, W/o Mangalsingh Caste Gond, R/o Village Kapariya (Vekatnagar), Tahsil Jaithari, District Anuppur (M.P.) 6 - Rambai D/o Buddhusingh, W/o Bahorisingh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Kukurgoda (Cholana), Tahsil Jaithari, District Anuppur (M.P.) 7 - Fuljhariya D/o Buddhusingh, W/o Jaisingh Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Kadamsara (Vekatnagar), Tahsil Jaithari, District Anuppur (M.P.) 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Gourela Pendra Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner/s : Shri Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Amardeep Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.02.2026 1. The plaintiff has filed this petition challenging the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No.11A of 2022, whereby an application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and vacant possession of the suit property. The plaintiff further challenged the order passed by the Revenue Court inter alia on the ground that the suit property is his ancestral property and defendants No.1 to 3, 5 to 7 have no right. In para 6, it is pleaded that the parties are governed by the Hindu law or Hindu Succession Act. By way of an application for amendment, the plaintiff sought to plead that the parties are governed by tribal customary rights and that, according to such custom, the sisters have no right over property of their father. The application was replied by the defendants. The learned trial Court rejected the application holding that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the parties are governed by the tribal customary rights and rituals and due to a bonafide mistake, the said fact was not pleaded in the plaint. He would submit that for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application for 3 amendment. He would pray that the order passed by the learned trial Court be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. 5. Heard. 6. 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, has held in paras 71.3 & 71.4 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 does 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 malafide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence." 7. A perusal of application for amendment would show that the plaintiff wants to plead tribal rights and practices by way of amendment whereas, this fact was not pleaded in the plaint rather it was pleaded that the parties are governed by Hindu Law or the Hindu Succession Act. The learned trial Court has rightly recorded a finding that allowing the amendment would change the nature of the suit. 4 8. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi