1 2026:CGHC:6679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 59 of 2023 1 - Suresh Kumar Agrawal S/o Sant Lal Agrawal, Aged About 69 Years (At That Relevant Time R/o Kotara Road, Vikas Nagar, Raigarh), Presently Residing At Friends Colony, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jamuna Devi Verma (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-09-2025 1.1 - Madan Mohan Verma S/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Presently Aged About 63 Years R/o Kotara Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Smt. Sarita Verma D/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Presently Aged About 60 Years R/o Kotara Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Pradeep Kumar Verma S/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Presently Aged About 58 Years R/o Kotara Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 1.4 - Raj Kumar Verma S/o Late Indar Singh Verma, Presently Aged About 56 Years R/o Kotara Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1(a) to 1(d) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shaswat Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Topilal Baraith, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No. A/21/2006. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate necessary averments in view of the additional documents brought on record by the defendant pursuant to an application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Facts of the case :- On 21.12.2006, the petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing old Khasra No.16/2 admeasuring 0.162 hectares situated at Village Baikunthpur, P.H. No.13, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.), asserting ownership and praying for restraint against the defendants from interfering with his peaceful 3 possession or from alienating or creating third-party rights by projecting the suit land as part of Khasra No.16/1. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was allowed by the Trial Court on 18.08.2008, resulting in dismissal of the suit; however, the said order was set aside in First Appeal by the District Judge, Raigarh on 16.09.2009, holding the suit to be maintainable and remanding it for adjudication on merits. Thereafter, defendant No.1 filed a written statement and counter-claim on 06.11.2009, which led to further proceedings being stayed owing to a Miscellaneous Appeal, later withdrawn, followed by a Second Appeal that was ultimately dismissed on 14.06.2022, affirming the maintainability of the suit and directing expeditious trial. Upon resumption of trial in July 2022, defendant No.1 moved applications under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC on 26.09.2022 and 30.09.2022 to bring additional documents on record, including a compromise decree dated 14.07.2018 passed by the National Lok Adalat, which applications were opposed by the petitioner on the ground of absence of pleadings, lack of relevance, and non-compliance with statutory requirements; nevertheless, the Trial Court allowed the same by order dated 20.10.2022. Consequent thereto, the petitioner sought amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to meet the case set up by the newly introduced documents, which application was rejected on 17.11.2022, compelling the petitioner to challenge the said orders and invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this 4 Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 20.10.2022, the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, pursuant to which certain documents were taken on record. Since these documents were permitted to be brought on record by the learned Civil Judge after a considerable lapse of time, it became necessary for the petitioner/plaintiff to appropriately respond to and controvert the same by way of suitable pleadings in the plaint. Accordingly, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking incorporation of additional pleadings after paragraph 20 of the plaint, to be numbered as paragraphs 20A and 20B. The proposed amendments contained a factual narration challenging the documents filed by the respondent/defendant. It was specifically pleaded that the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat was beyond jurisdiction, illegal, and null and void. It was further proposed to plead that in the earlier civil suit, the plaintiff was not a party and that the judgment dated 14.07.2018, which was filed along with the application, was obtained behind the back of the plaintiff. Learned counsel further submits that unless appropriate pleadings controverting the documents filed by the defendant are incorporated in the plaint, the plaintiff would be deprived of an effective opportunity to dispute the same. The amendment application was thus filed solely as a consequence of the order 5 passed by the learned Civil Judge allowing the application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the learned Civil Judge has illegally rejected the amendment application. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner/plaintiff be permitted to carry out the proposed amendment in the plaint. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supports the impugned order and submits that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was highly belated. He does not dispute that the application preferred by the defendant under Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, pursuant to which documents such as the compromise decree, sale deed, and revenue records were taken on record. He further submits that the petitioner was already aware of these documents and could have sought amendment of the plaint at an earlier stage of the proceedings. Therefore, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court ought not to interfere with the well-reasoned and justified findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and peruse the documents available on record. 6. The cause of action for filing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure appears to have arisen only 6 after the applications filed by the respondent/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure were allowed. 7. On perusal of the order by which the said applications were allowed indicates that certain documents, namely the compromise decree, sale deed, and revenue records, were brought on record by defendant No.1. The application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically relates to the validity and correctness of these documents filed by the defendant before the learned Civil Judge. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amendment sought by the petitioner is unnecessary for the proper adjudication of the case. Mere assertions in the plaint, ipso facto, do not amount to proof of the facts pleaded. The petitioner is still required to establish the proposed amendments by leading cogent and reliable evidence. However, while rejecting the amendment application, the learned Civil Judge held that the proposed amendment was not necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Civil Judge has exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.11.2022 is hereby set aside, and the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. 9. The proposed amendment shall be carried out by the petitioner either on the next date of hearing or on such date as may be fixed 7 by the trial Court. 10. Let a copy of this order along with the original records, if any, be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance. CC as per rules. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Saxena