1 2026:CGHC:25512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 110 of 2026 Champa Bai W/o Rajkumar Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Sodha, Post - Ruse, Police Station - Pandatarai, Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant. versus 1 - Jeetram Chandravanshi S/o Vishram Chandravanshi Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Ramnagar, Kawardha, Post, Police Station And Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Santosh Chandravanshi S/o Ghanshyam Chandravanshi Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 24, Darripara, Kawardha, Post, Police Station And Tahsil - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) . .. Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 22/06/2026 Heard. 1. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been preferred by the applicant/defendant, seeking following prayer :- “It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant civil revision and the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 (Annex. A-1) passed by the learned Additional Judge of District Judge, 2 Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.), passed in Civil Suit No. 01-A/2025 may kindly be set-aside and the application filed by the applicant / defendant under order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Annex. A-4) may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents /plaintiffs would submit that vide filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, applicant / defendant has raised objections that (a) the State has not been made party respondent in the suit, (b) the plaintiffs have not pleaded readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract (c), possession of the suit land has not been sought except seeking specific performance of the contract and (d) second copy of plaint has not been filed. It is further contended that in light of the objections raised by the applicants/defendants, the respondents No. 1 & 2 /plaintiffs are ready to move an appropriate application before the concerned trial court for amendment in the plaint. However, he submits that the Trial Court, while dismissing the application filed by the defendant (applicant) under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, granted permission to the plaintiff (respondents) to file a second copy of the plaint in its order dated 20.02.2026. It is also contended that the respondents/plaintiffs are ready to file amendment application seeking prayer to incorporate aforesaid amendments pertaining to which, objection has been raised by the applicant/defendant. Hence, this petition may be disposed of granting liberty to the respondents/plaintiffs for filing aforesaid application. 4. Counsel for the applicant/defendant has raised objection to the prayer made by counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. No-doubt, objection raised by applicant / defendant has legal significance, but it also cannot be said that the lacunae inflicted in the plaint cannot be rectified, as it seems that those lacunae in the plaint were left on account of inadvertence. 3 Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs. Hence, in the interest of justice, impugned order dated 20.02.2026 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.01-A/2025 to the extent of rejecting application filed by the applicant / defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, is hereby quashed. However, the respondents / plaintiffs are at liberty to file appropriate amendment application in light of objection raised by applicant/defendant in the application filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC within a period of seven working days, so that the case may be considered and decided on merits. 6. Accordingly the civil revision is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 7. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.25 16:58:38 +0530