1 CGHC010327392026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1087 of 2026 Murli Chandrakar S/o Kartik Chandrakar, Aged About 36 Years R/o Chuchurungpur, Post Gudha, P.S. Pipariya, Tahsil And District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vinil Surana S/o Late Shri Sanjay Surana Aged About 31 Years R/o Durg Road, Ratan Talkies, Bemetara, P.S. And Tahsil Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.25 17:46:34 +0530 2 10.07.2025 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bemetara, C.G., in Civil Suit No. 53-A/2023, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been allowed and he has been permitted to incorporate the amendment in the plaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defendant No. 1 before the learned trial Court, where respondent No. 1/plaintiff is prosecuting a suit for declaration on the basis of the sale agreement, possession and permanent injunction over the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 545/2 and 546/2, total area 0.1200 hectare, situated at Village Pachbhaiya, Tahsil and District Bemetara. He would submit that initially the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of his title under the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 08.04.2021 and also for a direction to defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, possession and permanent injunction; however, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff sought amendment to the effect that the amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- and Rs. 2,55,000/- be recovered from defendant No. 1, and the proposed amendment was made in his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which was allowed. He would further submit that by the proposed amendment, the entire nature of the suit would be changed. Initially, the suit itself was not maintainable under the facts and relief claimed by the plaintiff; however, only to make the suit maintainable, the plaintiff sought amendment in the plaint, which 3 has been allowed by the learned trial Court. He would submit that the valuable right of defendant No. 1 is prejudiced if the amendment is allowed to be incorporated in the plaint. Therefore, the same could not have been permitted by the learned trial Court, yet the proposed amendment has been allowed. He would further submit that, with respect to the maintainability of the suit itself, defendant No. 1 has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which has not been decided till date. Therefore, the amendment incorporated in the plaint has prejudiced the right of defendant No. 1, and the same be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. From perusal of the plaint, Annexure P/2, it transpires that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction with the prayer that defendant No. 1 may be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement dated 08.04.2021 and, if he fails to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff may be declared as the title holder of the suit property pursuant to the said sale agreement, and also for a direction to defendant No. 1 to obtain the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed, and for possession and permanent injunction. Now, by way of amendment, the plaintiff sought to amend the prayer clause to the effect that an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- and Rs. 2,55,000/- may also be recovered from defendant No. 1 and the same may be paid to the plaintiff. Since 4 the suit of the plaintiff is with respect to the execution of the agreement and its implementation, certain amount is said to have been paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 towards the sale agreement, for which he sought recovery of the said amount as an alternative pleading and relief. It further transpires from the order-sheet of the learned trial Court that the suit is at its initial stage and issues have not been framed yet. Learned trial Court, after considering the stage of the suit, nature of the proposed amendment as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the plaintiff and permitted him to incorporate the amendment. 6. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Needless to say that defendant No. 1 is at liberty to make consequential amendment in his written statement, if so desires. The learned Trial Court is also directed to expedite the trial of the case. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok