1 CGHC010290352026 2026:CGHC:34519-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3968 of 2026 1 - Shakti Singh Thakur aged about 34 years S/o Shri Santosh Singh R/o Gandhi Nagar, Near Sai Mandir Gali, Beside Rani Provision Store Gali, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Motilal Dayalani aged about 48 years S/o Shri Dularam Dayalani R/o Smart City Road, Near Sanjeevni Hospital, Bilaspur, Tah. And Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Rent Control Authority Bilaspur Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Rent Control Tribunal through The Acting Chairman, R.D.A Building, D.K.S. Hospital Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title as taken from the CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri with Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Praveen K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For Respondent/caveator : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.08.19 17:31:28 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J : 06/08/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in Misc. Appeal No.31/2026. Dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein affirming the order passed by Rent Controlling Authority (hereinafter referred as ‘RCA’) dated 13.02.2026 whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amending the application filed under Section 12 of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred as Act, 2011) was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent herein/applicant has filed an application seeking amendment in the application after the case is fixed for recording of evidence of the parties. He also contended that an application is filed on 13.01.2026 and on the said date respondent/applicant has also filed an application/affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC. The nature of amendment which is sought infact is changing in basic structure of the suit and therefore, it is not permissible under law and in support of his contention he referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme 3 Court in case of Basavaraj vs. Indira and others, Civil Appeal No.2886/2012, dated 29.02.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that it is not in dispute that the application for amendment was filed on 13.01.2026, i.e. on the dated fixed for recording of evidence of applicant. He contended that typographical error crept in the application under Section 12 of Act, 2011 came into the knowledge at the time of preparation of the case for evidence and on the first day the application for amendment was filed. He also pointed out that the case filed under Section 12 of Act, 2011 is on the facts that the non- applicant therein/petitioner is tenant of the respondent/applicant. In the application it is also mentioned of execution of the tenancy agreement dated 16.12.2024 in the same para which is sought to be amended. By way of amendment only the word ‘non-applicant’ mentioned in para 4 is sought to be amended as ‘applicant’ and further the word ‘respondent/defendant’ as mentioned in the 3rd line of para 4 is sought to be amended as ‘the applicant’. When the entire case filed under Section 12 of Act, 2011 showing that the petitioner herein is tenant of the respondent, then the amendment which is sought can not be said that, it is changing the nature of suit or the relief as prayed for in the application under Section 12 of Act, 2011. In support of his contention, he places reliance 4 upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another (2022) 16 SCC 1 at para 71.1 and 71.2. 4. We have heard counsel for the respective parties and also peruse the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 5. Annexure P/3 is an application under Section 12 of Act, 2011 filed by the respondent. In para 4 of the said application, it is also mentioned that non-applicant has shown his intention to run the hotel on the premises subject matter of the application with the consent, he will not cause any loss to the movable and immovable property and further that the applicant and his son will have an access and presence in the hotel to be run by the petitioner all the time. Further in para 4, it is also mentioned that the premises subject matter of the application was given on rent of Rs.3 lakhs per month with GST and rent agreement/deed has also been executed on 16.12.2024. Further in the relief clause also, evection of the petitioner is sought from the suit premises. In other paragraphs the status of the parties have been correctly pleaded as ‘the applicant and the non-applicant’. The Rent Controlling Authority while considering the application for amendment has considered entire facts as pleaded by the parties in their application under Section 12 and also reply to the application under Section 12 arrived at the conclusion that the amendment sought is 5 permissible and is accordingly allowed the application. The Rent Control Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings of the parties and the nature of amendment sought has observed that the amendment sought is corrective to typographical error in nature. 6. Respondent had filed an application seeking amendment in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the application submitted under Section 12 of Act, 2011 for evection of the non-applicant therein/petitioner. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is relevant and therefore, extracted below for ready reference : “17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 7. Law with regard to deciding the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is well settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases has held that Court should adopt a liberal approach and not to adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule. 6 8. In case of A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. vs. Damodar Valley Corporation AIR 1967 SC 96 had observed that - “The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred….” “The principal reasons that have led to the Rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and Rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith [(1884) 26 ChD 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729] ) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [ MANU/MH/0113/1909 : ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [ MANU/SC/0002/1957 : AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595] )76.” 9. In case of Ganga Bai vs. Vijay Kumar (1974) 2 SCC 393 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that - “The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the court.” 10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra), has explained the position of law as under: 7 “71. ….. 71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit, 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is malafide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal 8 especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. 9 Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897).” 11. In case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Union of India and Another (2011) 12 SCC 268, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus : “8. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations.” 12. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRS (2008) 8 SCC 511 as observed thus : “16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which 10 could not be compensated in costs. (Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar.)” 13. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agrawal (Bindal) & Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30324/2019 observed thus : “16. The scope of the dispute before us is limited to a procedural aspect. In the larger scheme, this dispute pertains to succession. If there is a Will, it has to be honoured. If one of the parties, who will be affected by the Will coming into effect, challenges it on one ground or the other, the process of succession cannot go forward without determination of the dispute regarding the Will. 17. Any and all delays in judicial processes should be avoided and minimised to the largest extent possible, and should generally be, and are rightly frowned upon. However, not in all cases can delay determine the fate of a Suit. The defendant submits that the time gap between submitting the written statement to the Suit and the presentation of the application seeking leave to amend is unexplained. If this argument of the defendant is accepted, the question of Will shall remain undecided or at best will be decided with great delay. The trial which has admittedly already commenced, would be stalled by way of a challenge to the framing of issues which, in turn, would not be in consonance with the object of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which is aimed at preventing multiplicity or multiple avenues of litigation, subsumed under the umbrella of one dispute. 18. Keeping in view the above, along with the fact that without determination of the question of Will and its genuineness, the partition of the Suit property would not be possible, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the High Court, allowing the amendment setting aside refusal of the Trial Court to grant such amendment.” 11 14. Recently in case of Akkiraju Panduranga Rao & Anr vs. Gundlapally Ranga Rao, SLP (C) Nos. 17491 – 17492 /2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus : “15. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that the courts have a discretion to allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 16. Therefore, the points of consideration as also noted by the High Court in its impugned order, for deciding an application for amendment, are reiterated as under: Firstly, whether the amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy? and Secondly, can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side? 17. It is a settled position of law that while deciding an application seeking amendment of pleadings, courts should not delve into the technicalities of law; rather, a liberal approach should be followed, inasmuch as the object and purpose of allowing amendment in the pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of litigation.” 15. From perusal of the pleadings made by the parties as also the pleadings made in the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, it is apparent that it is appearing to this Court that amendment sought is of correcting typographical error of the status of the parties to the proceedings as mentioned in para 4 which can not be said to be of a nature that an amendment 12 which is sought for and is allowed by Rent Controlling Tribunal is in any nature changing the basic structure of the suit or will in any manner change the relief as claimed for by the respondent herein in application under Section 12 of Act, 2011. No new fact is sought to be pleaded by way of amendment. 16. In the aforementioned facts of the case as discussed above and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, we are of the considered view that the Rent Control Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the application for amendment, permitting the applicant therein to correct the typographical error. 17. For the foregoing discussion, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by Rent Controlling Tribunal, affirming the order of the Rent Controlling Authority. 18. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ravi Mandavi