1 CGHC010292242026 2026:CGHC:33049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 948 of 2026 Dharmu Lal Patel S/o Tulsi Ram Patel Aged About 68 Years R/o Village- Baghamara Police Station And Tahsil And District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Nohar Lal Tiwari S/o Late Ramadhar Tiwari Aged About 70 Years R/o Jawahar Para, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 14.05.2026 SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.07.31 15:39:34 +0530 2 passed by learned Second District Judge, Balod in Civil Suit Class B/2/2024, whereby the learned trial Court allowed two applications filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) and Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defendant before the learned trial Court, where the respondent/plaintiff is prosecuting a suit for recovery of Rs. 35 lakhs. In the suit, the plaintiff was pleaded that the defendant had borrowed Rs. 35 lakhs in various installments in between the period of 2018 to 2021. The suit was filed on 08.05.2024 and the issues have been framed by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff has filed an application on 08.10.2025 for amendment in para 3 of the pleadings and he sought amendment in para 3 with respect to the fact that the transaction was continued since 2016 till 2021. However, due to typographical mistake, it comes that the transaction was continued from 2018 to 2021 and a deed of agreement has also been executed by the defendant on 16.04.2018. 4. He would further submit that the plaintiff should have possessed the entire facts in his knowledge at the time of presentation of the suit and in the subsequent stage, he developed his pleading by amending the same incorporating the execution of deed of agreement dated 16.04.2018, whereas there is no pleading of execution of any agreement. He would further submit that the case has been fixed for recording evidence of the plaintiffs and as per the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, once the trial has been started, amendment cannot be permitted which might have been available to the plaintiff before filing 3 of the suit. In the present case, by the proposed amendment, the entire nature of the suit is going to be changed, which is not permissible. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has also wrongly accepted the documents filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC. The explanation offered by the plaintiff is untenable on the ground that he being the plaintiff, should have filed the suit alongwith complete particulars and documents and in the subsequent stage, the change in the pleadings cannot be permitted, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another vs. Swami Keshavprakashdasji N. and Others, (2006) 12 SCC 1. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The main submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and after the evidence is being started, the amendment in the plaint cannot be permitted. 7. Under the controversy, when I examine the plaint annexed in the petition as Annexure P-2 and the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 which is also available at page No.33 of the petition, it transpires from para 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that "यह कि प्रकिवा दी द्वा रा वा दी से वार्ष 2018 से वार्ष 2021 किवाभिन्न किस् में किजी आवाश्य ब रा ल रामें 35,00,000/- अक्षरा (पै$से ल ख रुपैय) 4 दी उधा रा लिलय ह$। प्रकिवा दी द्वा रा वा दी से किश् में उधा रा रा भि+ ल सेमेंय यह आश्वा से दी राह कि में- अपै सेवा से किवा.त्त ह0 पैश्चा 2 50 से 60 ल ख रूपैय प्र प् ह0 5 ब वा दी 0 ब य था था प्रकिवा दी यह आश्वा से दिदीय था कि, जी0 पैचा से-से ठ ल ख रा भि+ मेंझे प्र प् ह0गी उसे रा भि+ में से सेम्पू=र्ण उधा रा 5 रा भि+ 35,00,000/- अक्षरा (पै$से ल ख रुपैय) रा भि+ वा दी 0 त् ल अदी रा दुंAगी ।". Likewise, in para 4, he further pleaded that "यह कि, प्रकिवा दी वार्ष 2018 में सेवा किवा.त्त ह0 गीय ह$। सेवा किवा.त्त ह0 पैश्चा प्रकिवा दी द्वा रा उक् उधा रा रा भि+ 35,00,000/- अक्षरा (पै$से ल ख रूपैय) 0 वा दी 0 गी हC किय गीय ब वा दी द्वा रा उक् रा भि+ 35,00,000/- रु 5 में Aगी प्रकिवा दी से 5 गीय, ब प्रकिवा दी द्वा रा उक् रामें 35,00,000/- अक्षरा (पै$से ल ख रूपैय) 0 वार्ष 2023 सेम्पू=र्ण रामें वा दी 0 अदी किय जी लिलखिख वाचा दिदी A 23.09.2023 0 दिदीय गीय ह$। उक् लिलखिख इरा रा में सेमेंय प्रकिवा दी 5 पैत् टो0मिमें ब ई उपैस्थिJ था औरा उ उपैस्थिJकि में 0टोरा सेमेंक्ष इरा रा में किष्पै दिदी प्रकिवा दी द्वा रा किय गीय ह$।" 8. From perusal of the amendment application filed by the respondent on 08.10.2025 before the learned trial Court, he sought amendment in the para 3 of the plaint, which is also necessary to be quoted here, which reads as under — “2. यह कि, वादी अपने वादी में किनेम्ने लिखित संशोधने रने चाहत ह:- अ/- वादीपत्र कि 03 पह ईने में वार्ष" 2018 टंने त्र$टिटंवाशो ह गय ह। जबकि उधर ने-दी ने वार्ष" 2016 सं वादी एवा प्रकितवादी मेंध्य हुआ ह। इसं रण वार्ष" 2018 किवाकिपत र वार्ष" 2016 लिर संशोधने रने चाहत ह। उक्त संशोधने वादी किनेररण लिए आवाश्य ह। ब/- यह कि, वादी पत्र कि 03 अन्त में "प्रकिवा दी द्वा रा वा दी से वार्ष 2016 से किवाभिन्न किश् में उधा रा ल-दी किय ह$ जिजीसे सेम्बAधा में प्रकिवा दी दिदी A 16.04.2018 0 इ रा में 0टोरा 5 सेमेंक्ष किष्पै दिदी किय ह$ था वार्ष 2018 ब दी वार्ष 2020 किवाभिन्न किश् में लिलय गीय उधा रा ल-दी सेम्बAधा में लिलख पैढ़ीP 5 गीय ह$ था सेमेंस् ल-दी किहसे ब कि ब रा दिदी A 23.09.2023 0 प्रकिवा दी द्वा रा अपै पैत् 0मिमें ब ई पैटोल से था सेAयक् रूपै से हस् क्षरिरा इरा रा में किष्पै दिदी किय गीय ह$।" लि र संशोधने रने चाहत ह।" 9. From perusal of para 4 of the plaint, it is quite vivid that the execution of agreement has been duly pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint, though the date has not been mentioned in the said pleading. However, the plaintiff has now proposed, by way of amendment, that on 16.04.2018, an agreement was executed between the parties before the notary concerned and he further stated in the proposed amendment that by the typographical mistake, the year 2016 is wrongly typed as 2018, which he sought to be corrected. Although the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 restrict the amendment after the trial has been started, however, in the present case, it is not the case that a new fact has been introduced by the plaintiff after the evidence has been started but it is only a clarificatory and introducing a date of agreement. When sufficient pleading of execution of agreement before the notary between the parties has been made, merely inclusion of the date of the agreement, in the opinion of this Court, it cannot change the nature of suit in any manner, rather, it is only a clarificatory in nature. Therefore, this Court is not impressed upon the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the trial has been started, the amendment in the plaint cannot be permitted to the plaintiff. 10. Likewise, the document has also been taken on record by the learned trial Court which has been filed by the plaintiff, that is the copy of agreement which he came into possession while domestic cleaning in 6 his house. The said document is also in consonance with the pleadings made by the plaintiff in the plaint that an agreement was executed before the notary with respect to the subject transaction and the same document has been sought to be filed by the plaintiff which has also been taken on record by the learned trial Court. Though, the trial of the case has been started and yet the cross-examination of the plaintiff has not commenced. 11. In view of the aforesaid consideration, I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the order passed by learned trial Court allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, permitting him to amend the pleading of the plaint as well as taken the document on record. 12. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on the facts and consideration with the present case. Therefore, no benefit could be extended to him by the said judgment. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit