1 CGHC010319782026 2026:CGHC:36967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1051 of 2026 Khemdas Sahu S/o Shri Indrasam Sahu Aged About 67 Years R/o Behind Satnam Bhawan Tehsil Bhilai -3, District Durg C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ghasi Ram Bandhe S/o Late Sadhuram Bandhe, R/o Didaga, Tehsil Bhilai -3, District Durg C. G. 2 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kumahari, Tehsil Bhilai, -3, District Durg C. G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Durg C. G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodia, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to carry out the amendment in cause-title during course of the day. 2. Heard. 3. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.07.2026 passed by SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.08.19 11:20:09 +0530 2 learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhilai-3, District – Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.34A/2024 whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC has been allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court where the plaintiff is prosecuting a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for possession of the suit property of the land Khasra No. 88/12 area 27 Sqmtr, situated at Village – Kumhari, District – Durg. Initially, the plaintiff has pleaded in para 7 of his plaint that the mother of the plaintiff has died on 05.03.2016 and then on 22.04.2022, when the plaintiff approached the defendant for vacation of the suit premises, the defendant refused to vacate the suit premises then the plaintiff came back to his house. However, by way of amendment, the plaintiff wants to delete that part of his pleading and wants to insert that after death of his parents on 22.04.2022, when the plaintiff had gone to Kumhari and asked the defendant No.1 to vacate the suit premises, he refused to vacate the suit premises then he came back. He would also submit that by way of amendment, the plaintiff wants to dilute the limitation, as there was an effect of limitation in filing the suit and it does change the very nature of the suit and the entire complexion and only to bring the suit within limitation, amendment has been proposed that too only after filing of the written statement by the defendant, which can not be permitted. He would further submit that the serious prejudice has been caused to the defendant and he would be debarred from taking all his defences in the suit, the entire nature of the suit is likely to be changed, and therefore, the plaintiff can not be permitted to amend his pleading 3 in the plaint. The impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. From perusal of the copy of the plaint annexed at page No.23 (Annexure P-2) of the writ petition, in para 7, the plaintiff has made the following pleading :- "7. यह कि वादी किता साधूराम मत्य लंबी बीमरा राण दिदीनां 25.11.2008 ग्राम-किगा ताह. टनां वा जि#लं-दुगा% म& ह गाई। साधूराम मत्य ह #नां रा वादी स्वाय एवा उसा म नां प्रकितावादी . 01 सा साम्प% किय उक्ता मनां म& स्वाय राहनां चाहता ह0 उसा वाह रिराक्ता रा वादी ब्# प्रदीनां रा दी । राता प्रकितावादी . 01 नां वादी एवा प्रकितावादी ए मध्य आसा मधूरा व्यवाहरा हनां हता हुए आ#-लं बीहनां बीनांरा टलंता राह, राता उसा द्वारा उक्ता मनां रिराक्ता नांह किय गाय। इसा दी9रानां वादी म मत्य दिदीनां 05.03.2016 ह गाई, ताबी वादी नां दिदीनां 22.04.2022 नां: प्रकितावादी सा उक्ता मनां रिराक्ता रा ब्# दिदीय #नां बीबीता; ग्राम- म्हरा गाय हुआ था औरा उक्ता मनां रिराक्ता ब्# रानां ह ता दिदीय #नां ह ता प्रकितावादी . 01 सा किनांवा दीनां किय राता प्रकितावादी . 01 द्वारा वादीग्रास्ता मनां रिराक्ता किय #नां सा मनां रा दिदीय ताबी वादी नां: अनां गाह ग्राम-किगा ताह. टनां वा जि#लं-दुगा% वासा आ गाय।" 7. From perusal of the copy of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC which has been annexed as Annexure P-3, it transpires that certain part of para 7 of the plaint is sought to be substituted in the following manner :- "3. यह कि वादी अनां वादी त्र कि क्रम-07 म यह कि वादी किता …………..... मत्य दिदीनां-05.03.2016 ह गाई। किवालंकिता रानां चाहता ह0। जि#सा स्थानां रा यह उल्लं खिFता रानां चाहता ह0 “यह कि वादी किता एवा उस मां मांत्य ह जाने श्चाता वादी ने प्रकितावादी क्रमां -01 स दिदीने -22.04.2022 उक्ता मांने रि क्ता ब्जा दिदीय जाने बाबाता ग्रामां - म्ह % गय हुआ था ताथा उक्ता मांने रि क्ता ने हता ले जाने बाबाता प्रकितावादी क्रमां -01 स किनेवादीने किय ता प्रकितावादी क्रमां -01 द्वा वादी ग्रास्ता मांने रि क्ता किय जाने स मांने दिदीय ताबा वादी ने- 4 अने गह ग्रामां - कि//ग ताहस%ले टने वा जिजाले - दुग3 वास आ गय " #नां चाहता ह0।" 8. On comparative reading of both this pleadings, it transpires that initially, the plaintiff has pleaded that after death of his mother on 05.03.2016, the defendant had gone to Kumhari on 22.04.2022 whereas in the proposed amendment, the plaintiff sought amendment with respect to the death of his mother and father both and the rest part of the pleading appears to be remained as it is. Though, the defendant raised an objection that only to bring the suit within limitation, the plaintiff has sought amendment in the plaint, however, in view of the fact that the suit is in its initial stage and even issues have not been framed till date, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the defendant by the proposed amendment and the defendant has every right to raise his objection by way of his written statement or any other mode, during the trial of the suit. From the entire pleading of the plaint as well as proposed amendment, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the plaintiff for amendment in para 7 of his plaint. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. It is made clear that the defendant it at liberty to consequentially amend his written statement and also is liberty to raise all his defences available to him during the trial of the suit. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit