1 2026:CGHC:9162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 217 of 2026 1 - Salauddin S/o Late Moijuddin Aged About 66 Years Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Salauddin The Petitioner No. 1, R/o H. No. 510/2, Sadar Bazar Raipur, Teh. And District Raipur C.G. 2 - Minhajuddin S/o Late Moijuddin Aged About 64 Years Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Salauddin The Petitioner No. 1, R/o H. No. 510/2, Sadar Bazar Raipur, Teh. And District Raipur C.G. 3 - Nafisuddin S/o Late Moijuddin Aged About 57 Years Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Salauddin The Petitioner No. 1, R/o H. No. 510/2, Sadar Bazar Raipur, Teh. And District Raipur C.G. 4 - Sahid Munir S/o Late Moijuddin Aged About 55 Years Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Salauddin The Petitioner No. 1, R/o H. No. 510/2, Sadar Bazar Raipur, Teh. And District Raipur C.G. 5 - Kousar Begam D/o Late Moijuddin Aged About 53 Years Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Salauddin The Petitioner No. 1, R/o H. No. 510/2, Sadar Bazar Raipur, Teh. And District Raipur C.G. 6 - Kesar Begam D/o Late Moijuddin Aged About 73 Years Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Salauddin The Petitioner No. 1, R/o H. No. 510/2, Sadar Bazar Raipur, Teh. And District Raipur C.G. 7 - Rosanak Begam D/o Late Moijuddin Aged About 71 Years Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Salauddin The Petitioner No. 1, R/o H. No. 510/2, Sadar Bazar Raipur, Teh. And District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.02.23 16:58:53 +0530 2 1 - Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur (C.G.) Through- The Vice Chancellor/ Registrar Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur, Teh And District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 20/02/2026 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned 11th Additional Judge to the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Civil Suit No. 280-A of 2019, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioners has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who happen to be the plaintiffs has filed a civil suit seeking possession in respect of the suit property comprised in piece of Khasra No. 19/17 admeasuring 0.579 hectare, situated at Moja Kota, R.I.C. No. 3, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The application for amendment was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking incorporation of an additional prayer, which reads as under:— "
   गण  उप  ह  अ    प  ए   ! अस#$ ह ह%  % &'प अ (ष  *प ! गण  उस  ह  अ    ( ल , 0.579 ह-.य   $ ल-. गईड लई   स ल यप( (छ.ग.) ! य यप(   . 34 ! 0.579ह. ,  5 ष  स! आग ह( ड 7 8ल ह गण 
 स लई "  स98  य   स9, आ8 प:    5 प ह। He submits that the petitioners is only elaborating the relief clause and it would not cause any prejudice to the respondent thus the application ought to have been allowed but the learned civil judge committed an error 3 of law in fact rejecting the same and thus exercise its jurisdiction with material irregularity. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission and submits that the suit was filed in the year 2019 and written statement was filed in the year 2020, issue were framed and one of the witness of the petitioners/plaintiff have already been examined. The defence of the respondent/defendant has already been disclosed in order to counter the defence, the said application was filed. Apart from this, he submits that the amendment application is also hit by proviso to order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Perusal of the record would indicate the civil suit was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking a relief of possession over the suit property. From the submission made herein above it appears that the suit was filed in the year 2019 and written statement was filed in the year 2020 and one of the witness of the petitioners/plaintiffs have also been examined. Perusal of the application for amendment would indicate that no due diligence has been shown by the petitioners/plaintiffs as to why the said amendment was not incorporated earlier. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the learned civil judge has held that the suit at the plaintiff evidence and evidence of plaintiffs have started and two witnesses including plaintiff and his witness Akhilesh Sharma have been examined and during the cross examination of the witnesses, the respondent/defendant has already been disclosed. By the proposed amendment, it may affect their defence and nature of the suit may be changed. The relief which the petitioners/plaintiffs willing to incorporated by way of amendment was in their knowledge from the very beginning. The application is highly belated thus rejected. In the opinion of the Court, the reasoning assigned by the learned civil judge appears to be based on proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from this, the application of the 4 petitioners/plaintiffs is also hit by proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned civil judge. 6. In view of above, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan