1 CGHC010288632026 2026:CGHC:33051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 957 of 2026 1 - Nikhil Kumar Shukla S/o Late Kiran Kumar Shukla Aged About 33 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Rajnandgaon, And Presently R/o House No. 50/61, Agnivanshi Wada, Durgi Hatri Road, Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Mobile No. 8319346906 Represented Through Speical Power Of Attorney Holder Smt. Seema Shukla Agnivanshi, D/o Late Ramsanehi Shukla, R/o House No. 50/61, Agnivanshi Bada, Turi Hatri Road, Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Seema Shukla Agnivanshi W/o Late Kiran Kumar Shukla Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. 60/61, Agnivanshi Bada, Turi Hatri Road, Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kamal Narayan Shukla S/o Late Krishna Kumar Shukla Aged About 62 Years R/o Beside Ramayan Pracharak, Gandhi Chowk, Brahmanpara, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Mobile No. 7999188272 2 - Smt. Manju Sharma W/o Shri Rajesh Sharma Aged About 56 Years R/o Care Of Shri Manikant Pandey, Block-C, Durga Chowk, Leela 2 Apartment, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Mobile No. 77229-64704 3 - Smt. Madhu Pandey Sharma W/o Shri Dharmendra Pandey Aged About 50 Years R/o Minocha Colony Apartment, Second Floor, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Mobile No. 99261-93903, 75819-87631 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.4/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 30/07/2026 The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.143A/2022, whereby the application preferred by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit instituted for declaration that the Will dated 30.07.2008 is null and void, along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners preferred an application under 3 Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court primarily on the ground that the proposed amendment was extensive in nature and, therefore, could not be permitted at the present stage of the proceedings. It is contended that though the proposed amendment is elaborate, the same is essential for an effective and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioners be permitted to incorporate the proposed amendments in the plaint. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 4. A perusal of the plaint annexed with the petition reveals that the plaintiffs have already incorporated sufficient factual pleadings in support of their case. The order sheets further disclose that amendments to the plaint had been permitted on earlier occasions. Notwithstanding the same, the plaintiffs again preferred an application dated 08.10.2025 seeking further amendments introducing several factual averments of considerable length. 5. From a perusal of the proposed amendment application, it is evident that the amendments sought relate to various factual aspects which were admittedly within the knowledge of the plaintiffs even prior to the institution of the suit. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that repeated amendments having already been allowed, permitting such an extensive amendment at a subsequent stage would be impermissible. The trial Court has further recorded a finding that the 4 facts sought to be incorporated were available to the plaintiffs before filing of the suit and, therefore, could and ought to have been pleaded in the original plaint. 6. Having considered the pleadings, the proposed amendments and the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The impugned order does not warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.08.01 13:21:17 +0530