1 2026:CGHC:22690 Order reserved on 31.01.2026 Order pronounced on 13.05.2026 Order uploaded on 13.05.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 818 of 2025 Diggi Chhugani W/o Vivek Manwani, D/o Late Prakash Chand Chhugani, aged about 38 years R/o Near State Bank, Gurukripa Traders Pendra, Tahsil- Pendraroad, District Gaurela-Pendra - Marwahi C.G., Mo No. 9993804621 (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner versus 1. Santosh Chhugani S/o Late Prakashchand Chhugani, aged about 42 years R/o Rajeev Vihar Colony, Lingiyadih Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. (Plaintiff) 2. Miss Sheela Chhugani D/o Late Prakashchand Chhugani, aged about 44 years R/o Rajeev Vihar Colony, Lingiyadih Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. (Defendant No. 2) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. (Defendant No. 3) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Ratnesh Agrawal and Shri Saurabh Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents : Shri Abhyuaday Tripathi PL and Shri Chandrabhushan Paswan, Advocates 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Order The petitioner by this Writ Petition calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 164-A/2021 dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17, under Order I Rule 10 and under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”). Another order challenged in this petition is dated 01.08.2025 passed by the same Court and in the same Civil Suit dismissing the application filed under Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC. 2. The suit property in this case is the shop constructed on the land bearing Khasra No. 54/251, Plot No. 140 admeasuring 1232 sq. ft. situate at village Lingiyadih, Tehsil and District, Bilaspur. The suit property is said to have been purchased by one Prakash Chand Chhugani, the father of respondent No.1/plaintiff, that of petitioner/defendant No.1 and that of respondent No.2/defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 09.09.1993 from one Kulwant Kaur, out of his own resources. After the death of Prakash Chand Chhugani on 21.04.2021, the petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 became entitled for equal share thereof. However, the petitioner/defendant No.1 claimed her title over the suit property on the basis of a forged and fabricated will dated 18.11.2020 which was never executed by Prakash Chand Chhugani. It is revealed from the record that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is carrying on the business on the suit property but the petitioner/defendant No.1 is trying to dispossess him despite having received 1/3rd share in the suit property after the death of his father Prakash Chand 3 Chhugani, and for that respondent No.1/plaintiff preferred the suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, and also for declaring the will dated 18.11.2020 as null and void. 3. Petitioner/defendant No.1 filed the written statement as well as the counter claim denying the plaint averment that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was having 1/3rd share in the suit property. It is specifically stated in the counter claim that she became the owner of the suit property by virtue of the will dated 18.11.2020 executed by her father namely Prakash Chand Chhugani in her favour. The counter claim further goes to show that one house constructed upon Khasra No. 15/465 area 2677.5 sq.ft. (henceforth referred to as the counter claim’s property) situate at village Lingiyadih, Tehsil and District Bilaspur was purchased by her father from one K. Khan for a consideration of Rs. 11,50,000/- out of which Rs. 10,93,664/- was arranged by taking loan from ICICI Bank, Bilaspur, but out of love and affection the sale deed was executed in the name of respondent No.1/plaintiff. Being this, the petitioner/defendant No.1 also claims to be the joint title holder of the counter claim’s property along with respondent No.1/plaintiff and respondent/defendants No.2. She thus filed a counter claim for declaration of title, partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of her 1/3rd share in the suit property as also in the counter claim’s property. 4. The material on record further reveals that on 08.09.2023 as the respondent No.1/plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Shiv Kumar Jaiswal, the petitioner/defendant No.1 moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 along with the one under Order I Rule 10 and another being under Order VII Rule 1(3) CPC. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed reply to all of them also. The trial Court issued summons to the purchaser Shiv 4 Kumar Jaiswal, and since it remained unserved, the petitioner/defendant No.1 moved an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC for substituted service. By order dated 11.07.2025 learned trial Court dismissed the applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 and under Order I Rule 10 and under Order V Rule 20 CPC. By another order dated 01.08.2025 the application filed under Order under Order VII Rule 1(3) CPC was also dismissed by the trial Court. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 submits that both the orders under challenge in this petition being Annexure P-1 and P-2 are perverse and therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that learned trial Court committed an error in holding that the petitioner/defendant No.1 is claiming the property other than the suit property. It is submitted that the scope of order VI Rule 17 CPC has also not been appreciated in its proper perspective and thereby it has ignored to consider the nature of amendment necessary for adjudication of the counter claim. It is further submitted that learned trial Court has also failed to consider the scope of Order I Rule 10 CPC while dismissing the application filed under that provision on the ground of dismissal of the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 further submits that learned trial Court has also fallen in serious error in dismissing the application filed under Order V Rule 20 CPC seeking substituted service on the purchaser of Shiv Kumar Jaiswal which amounts to review of its own order because earlier the notice was issued by that very Court, which is not permissible in law. In other words, it is submitted that the trial Court has overlooked the fact that purchaser of the counter claim’s property would be a necessary party for adjudication of the suit. Likewise, it is submitted that the dismissal of application filed under Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC is also bad in law as it restrained the 5 petitioner/defendant No.1 from producing certain documents in her defence. He further submits that learned trial Court has overlooked the fact that without correct boundary and Khasra number of the counter claim’s property, the petitioner/defendant No.1 will not be able to obtain possession if she succeeded. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rohit Singh and others v. State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) and others reported in (2006) 12 SCC 734 and in the matter of Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajehwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhal Shakarbhai Patel and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1958. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the orders impugned rejecting the applications filed under Order VI Rule 17, under Order I Rule 10, under Order V Rule 20 and under Order VII Rule 1(3) CPC have been passes after considering the material on record and being so no interference is called for therewith. 7. From the perusal of the material on record it is apparent that the suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in the year 2021. The petitioner/defendant No.1 filed the counter claim on 15.12.2022 with a prayer for 1/3rd share with vacant possession of the land bearing Khasra No.15/465 area 2677.5 sq.ft and also for vacant possession of shop constructed on land falling in PH No. 20, No. 140, Khasra No. 54/251, area 1232 sq. ft situate at village Lingiyadih, Tehsil and District Bilaspur. During pendency of the suit, on 6.8.2024 the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment in the counter claim, under Order I Rule 10 for making the purchaser namely Shiv Kumar Jaiswal as party, and under Order VIII Rule 6 1(3) CPC for taking documents on record. It was stated by the petitioner/defendant No.1 that during pendency of the suit the land bearing Khasra No. 15/752 was sold by a registered sale deed on 08.09.2023 to one Shiv Kumar Jaiswal therefore, the amendment in the counter claim as well may be allowed to be made and the the registered sale deed may be permitted to be brought on record. As already stated, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed reply to all these applications filed by the petition/defendant No.1. The material on record further indicates that though the registered sale deed in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 15/752 was executed on 08.09.2023 in favour of Shiv Kumar Jaiswal yet the petitioner/defendant no.1 did not bother to raise this issue just thereafter, rather she took about one year to do so and that too without assigning any reason justifying such delay. From the plaint it is manifest that originally the suit was filed in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 54/251 area 1232 sq. ft and the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed a counter claim and after execution of sale deed on 08.09.2023 she has filed an application for amendment under order VI Rule 17 for amendment in the counter claim, under Order I Rule 10 for making the purchaser namely Shiv Kumar Jaiswal as party, and under Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC for taking documents on record. This shows that the land sold on 08.09.2023 is neither the suit land nor it relates to counter claim. Learned trial Court has considered all the aspects of the matter while deciding the applications referred to above, and there appears to be no perversity in the order impugned warranting interference in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India exercising the supervisory jurisdiction. Therefore, if the amendment sought for by the petitioner/defendnat No.1 is allowed, it would change the entire nature of the suit itself, and the applications referred to above have rightly been rejected by the trial Court. 7 8. Having considered the factual situation as above, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error much less the legal error in rejecting the applications application for amendment under order VI Rule 17 for amendment in the counter claim, under Order I Rule 10 for making the purchaser namely Shiv Kumar Jaiswal as party, and under Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC for taking documents on record. The decisions sought to be relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner with due respect may not come to his rescue in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this view of the matter, the petition being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.05.13 18:14:05 +0530