1 2026:CGHC:21497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 359 of 2026 Narayan S/o Shatruhan Vema Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Ahilda, Tahsil- Lawan, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Mahruram S/o Shri Bodhram Verma Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Ahilda Tahsil- Lawan, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Mr. Akash Agrawal and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 07/05/2026 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 02.03.2026 passed by learned First Additional Judge of First Civil Judge, Balodbazar in Civil Suit No. 57-A of 2025 by which amendment application sought by the plaintiff was allowed and certain facts reflected from judgment and decree passed in S.A. No. 71 of 1997 by this Court on 22.01.2016 has been directed to be incorporated. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.05.12 10:34:26 +0530 2 2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the said amendment new cause of action has been arisen though the issue has already been adjudicated by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such it will amount to defeat the judgment and decree passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner. He would further submit that the propose amendment is barred by limitation and it will change the nature of the suit. He would further submit that the fact regarding allowing of the appeal is known to the plaintiff before the trial Court despite this he has not mentioned this fact in the plaint, therefore, the proposed amendment is nothing to delay the proceedings and would pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 02.03.2026. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shobit Kosta, counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that the trial Court has not committed any illegality as the petitioner is at liberty to make consequential amendment by denying the pleadings made by the plaintiff in the amendment application. He would further submit that the right of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in the writ petition is still open as he was not party to the original suit, in the S.A. No. 71 of 1997 also decided by this Court, as such he would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Considering the fact that the amendment has been allowed by the trial Court and the amendment which are intent to incorporate are relates to fact born out of judgment and decree passed in SA No. 71 of 1997 wherein the plaintiff was not party to that case, therefore, which has not been disputed by the defendant before the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 57-A of 2025, therefore, I am 3 of the view by allowing the amendment has not committed any illegality or irregularity or transgressed its jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as such writ petition is liable to be disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to incorporate the consequential amendment and learned trial Court will conclude the trial within outer limit of 1 year from the first appearance i.e. on 18th June 2026. It is directed that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant will adopt delay tactics, if any delay tactics is adapted by them trial Court will proceed in the matter as per law. The trial Court is also at liberty to frame additional issue on the subsequent pleading, if so required on the pleading made by the petitioner and denied by the defendants. 6. With this direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh