1 CGHC010092592025 2026:CGHC:29752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 220 of 2025 1 - Fulmati W/o Late Ramswarath Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o Darripara, Madipur, Near Bilaspur Chowk, P.S. And Tehsil - Ambikapur, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Ram Kishun S/o Late Ramswarath Sahu Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Business, R/o Darripara, Madipur, Near Bilaspur Chowk, P.S. And Tehsil - Ambikapur, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Gopi Kishan S/o Late Ramswarath Sahu Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Business, R/o Darripara, Madipur, Near Bilaspur Chowk, P.S. And Tehsil - Ambikapur, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Tilkuwar D/o Late Amarsai Aged About 50 Years Caste - Rajwar, Occupation - Farmer, R/o Village - Kanthi, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 2 - Chamarsai S/o Late Amarsai Aged About 43 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 2 3 - Kuren Bai D/o Late Amarsai Aged About 46 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Tara Bai D/o Late Amarsai Aged About 40 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 5 - Kaushalya D/o Late Amarsai Aged About 36 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 6 - Shivbarat S/o Late Kawalsai Aged About 45 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 7 - Ramashankar S/o Late Kawalsai Aged About 38 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 8 - Devshankar S/o Late Kawalsai Aged About 32 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 9 - Smt. Lalo D/o Late Kawalsai Aged About 43 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 10 - Durgawati D/o Late Kawalsai Aged About 41 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 11 - Munnibai D/o Late Kawalsai Aged About 34 Years Caste - Rajwar, 3 R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 12 - Fulkuwar W/o Fekuram, D/o Late Bhogaluram Rajwar Aged About 75 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Nawabandh, P.S. - Darima, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 13 - Kabutari Bai W/o Gopalram, D/o Late Bhogaluram Aged About 80 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Namakala, Tehsil Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh 14 - Sukhobai W/o Kenduram, D/o Late Bogaluram Aged About 70 Years Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village - Beldagi, Tehsil - Lakhanpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 15 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 to 14 : None present though served. For Respondent No.15/State : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 10/07/2026 The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No. 260-A/2013, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 read 4 with Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are arrayed as defendant Nos. 14(a), (b) and (c) before the learned trial Court. Respondent No.1 instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction in respect of 3.56 hectares of land comprised in various Khasra numbers situated at Village Kanthi, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 27.05.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No.260-A/2013, whereby the plaintiff was held entitled to partition and separate possession of the suit property. 3. Being aggrieved, defendant No.14 preferred Civil Appeal No. A/42/2019 before the learned Third Additional District Judge, Ambikapur. The appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 22.09.2023, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after affording defendant No.14 an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, Tilak Kunwar, with respect to the documents already filed by defendant No.14 before the trial Court. 4. Upon remand, defendant No.14 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement and permission to bring certain documents on record. The learned trial Court, however, rejected the said application 5 by the impugned order. It is further contended that during the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.14(a), (b) and (c) had earlier sought amendment of the written statement, which had been allowed by the trial Court. However, owing to inadvertence, the permitted amendment could not be incorporated in the written statement. It is submitted that the appellate Court, while remanding the matter by judgment dated 22.09.2023, took note of the said amendment in paragraph 57.2 of its judgment. Therefore, the present application seeking incorporation of the amendment and permission to place the relevant documents on record was necessary to give effect to the earlier order. It is argued that refusal to permit the amendment would seriously prejudice the petitioners' defence and adversely affect their valuable property rights. The proposed amendment and accompanying documents are stated to be essential for an effective and complete adjudication of the controversy. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Akkiraju Panduranga Rao & Another v. Gundlapally Ranga Rao, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 805. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposed the petition and submitted that although the appellate Court, while passing the judgment dated 22.09.2023, had noticed that the amendment earlier permitted by the trial Court had not been incorporated in the written statement, paragraph 57.4 of the appellate judgment specifically confined the scope of remand by permitting defendant No.14 only to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, Tilak Kunwar, in relation to the documents already placed on record before 6 the trial Court. No liberty was granted either to amend the pleadings afresh, to file additional documents, or to adduce further evidence. It is further submitted that the judgment dated 22.09.2023 has attained finality, having not been challenged by either the plaintiff or the defendants. 6. Since the remand was expressly limited in scope, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by defendant No.14. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order suffers from neither illegality nor jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The controversy involved in the present petition revolves around the scope and ambit of the directions issued by the appellate Court in its judgment dated 22.09.2023. It is, therefore, apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the said judgment which reads as under: 57- vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy vkaf’kd #i ls Lohdkj dj fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 27-05-2019 vikLr djrs gq, izdj.k fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh vksj bl funsZ’k ds LkkFk izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gS fd & 1- vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknh dzekad 14 v]c]l dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk vkosnu izLrqr varxZr vk-6 fu-18 lgifBr /kkjk 151 lh-ih-lh- ds vuqlkj izLrkfor la’kks/ku lekfo”V dj izekf.kr djkus dh vuqefr iznku dh tk;sxhA 7 2- izfroknh dz-02@mRrjoknh dz-&04 dks xzke iapk;r daBh dh ukekarj.k iath dks vfrfjDr nLrkosth lk{; ds #i esa tfj, lk{; iznf’kZr o izekf.kr djus dh vuqefr fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk iznku dh tk;sxh rFkk ;fn izfroknh dz-&02 ;k vU; izfooknhx.k o fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr okn i= esa ;Fkkmfpr la’kks/ku djus ds fy, Lora= jgsaxsA izLrqr la’kks/ku vkosnu fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d efLr”d ij fuHkZj djsxkA fopkj.k U;k;ky ds le{k izLrqr okn i= esa rkRfod ifjorZu u gks bl ckr dk fo’ks”k /;ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk uohu la’kks/ku ds vkosnu ij /;ku nsdj fujkd`r fd;k tk;sxkA 3- vihykFkhZx.k @izfroknh dz-&04 v]c]l dks muds }kjk iwoZ ls izLrqr eq[; ijh{k.k ds ‘kiFk i= dks Hkk-lk-fo- dh /kkjk 167 ds rgr~ i<k tkdj eq[; ijh{k.k ds xokgksa dk izfrijh{k.k fd, tkus dh vuqefr izfroknhx.k@mRrjoknhx.k dz-&1 yxk;r 15 dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk iznku fd;k tk,xkA 4- vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknh dz-&14 v]c]l dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh lk{kh dsoy fryd dqaoj vk- vej lk; ds izfrijh{k.k dk volj iznku fd;k tk;sxkA lkFk gh fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izfroknh dz- &14 v]c]l ds }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa dks tks fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k esa iwoZ ls izLrqr gS mUgsa tfj, lk{; fopkj.k U;k;ky; iznf’kZr o izekf.kr djus dk volj iznku djsxkA 5- mHk; i{k fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh esa Hkkx ysus ds fy, fnukad 03-10-2023 dks vko’;d #i ls mifLFkr jgsaxsA fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k iwoZ ls izLrqr eq[; ijh{k.k o izfrijh{k.k ds lk{; Hkk-lk-fo- ds /kkjk 167 ds izko/kkuksa ds vkysd esa lHkh U;k;laxr vioknksa ds v/;k/khu i<s tk;saxasA fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk Ng ekg ds Hkhrj xq.knks”k ds vk/kkj ij ekeys dk fujkdj.k fd;k tk;sxkA 6- vkns’k dh izfr ds lkFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrq Hksth tkosA 7- izdj.k dh ifjfLFkr dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, mHk;i{k viuk okn O;; djsaxsA 8 8- vf/koDrk ‘kqYd izekf.kr gksus ij ;k lwph vuqlkj tks fd U;wu gks ns; gksA” 9. Upon perusal of paragraphs 57.1 and 57.2 of the judgment dated 22.09.2023, it is not in dispute that, during the pendency of the suit, the application for amendment preferred by defendant No.14 had been allowed by the learned trial Court. However, the said amendment was never incorporated in the written statement. The aforesaid paragraphs merely record that the amendment had been permitted by the trial Court but remained unincorporated by defendant No.14. 10. Insofar as the application filed by defendant No.14 before the learned trial Court after remand is concerned, a plain reading of the judgment dated 22.09.2023 unequivocally reveals that no liberty was granted to the parties either to further amend their pleadings, to file additional documents, or to adduce further evidence. On the contrary, paragraph 57.4 specifically confines the scope of the remand by permitting defendant Nos.14(a), (b) and (c) only to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, Tilak Kunwar, to the limited extent of the documents already brought on record before the trial Court. The appellate Court has, therefore, consciously restricted the scope of the remand and has not conferred any liberty to further amend the pleadings or to place additional documents on record. 11. It is a settled principle that where an appellate Court remands a matter for a limited purpose, the trial Court is duty-bound to act strictly within the confines of the remand order and cannot enlarge the scope 9 of the proceedings beyond the directions expressly issued by the appellate Court. In the present case, the remand was confined solely to enabling defendant No.14 to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness with reference to the documents already filed before the trial Court. Consequently, defendant No.14 cannot be permitted to file additional documents or seek further amendment of the written statement after remand. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the limited nature and scope of the remand order passed by the appellate Court and has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioners. No perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The decision of theApex Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is clearly distinguishable on facts and has no application to the controversy involved in the present case. Consequently, no benefit can be derived therefrom. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.14 15:00:42 +0530