1 CGHC010358962026 2026:CGHC:40511 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1199 of 2026 1 - Abhisek Shukla S/p Late Tulsikant Shukla Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) Agriculturist Village Kumharkhan, Tehsil Bhatapara District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) (Details As Per Plaints) 2 - Shrikant Shukla S/o Late Balbhadra Prasad Shukla Aged About 71 Years Resident Of Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) Agriculturist Village Kumharkhan, Tehsil Bhatapara District Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) (Details As Per Plaints) 3 - Nitin Shukla S/o Late Amarkant Shukla, Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) Agriculturist Village Kumharkhan, Tehsil Bhatapara District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) (Details As Per Plaints) 4 - Praveen Shukla S/o Late Amarkant Ahukla, Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) Agriculturist Village Kumharkhan, Tehsil Bhatapara District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) (Details As Per Plaints) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Anil Kumar Shukla S/o Late Bipin Bihari Shukla, Aged About 69 Years Resident Of Village Kumharkhan Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Aman Kumar Shukla S/o Anil Kumar Shukla, Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Kumharkhan Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Yaman Kumar Shukla S/o Anil Kumar Shukla Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village Kumharkhan Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Naveen Shukla S/o Late Bipin Bihari Shukla Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Civil Line, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.09.17 11:51:38 +0530 2 5 - Manish Shukla S/o Late Surendra Shukla, Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Kumharkhan Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, P.L. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 16/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 06.04.2026 passed by learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baloda-Bazar in Civil Suit No. CIVIL SUIT A FOR CJ/2/2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the prayer clause of the plaint has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, they are prosecuting a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit was filed on 18.01.2023, and thereafter, summons have been served upon the defendants and they have filed their written statements, and thereafter, the plaintiffs sought amendment in their plaint for which an application has been filed for amendment in the prayer clause of the plaint but the same has been rejected by the 3 learned trial Court by observing that the proposed amendment is vague and such vague amendment can not be permitted in the prayer clause of the plaint. He would further submit that it is only a clarification of the existing prayer clause, therefore, the same may be permitted to be incorporated in the prayer clause of the plaint. There is no prejudice is being caused to the defendants and they have every right to consequential amendment of their written statement. The suit is at its initial stage and issues have not been framed yet, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioners may be permitted to carry out the necessary amendment in their plaint. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-2), it transpires that the plaintiffs initially prayed for declaration of title over the suit property shown in Schedule-A annexed with the plaint and also for permanent injunction, the initial prayer made by the plaintiffs is as below :- “1- यह कि माननय न्ययलय वादी गण पक्ष मा प्रकिवादी गण 01 से 03 किवारूद्ध ग्रामा म्हरखान पहन 06 मा स्थि भू!मिमा खासेर न#बर जो& अनसेचि) अ मा दीर्शि+, ह- वादी गण स्वामा एवा# स्वात्वाधार ह- जिजोसे पर प्रकिवादी गण 01 से 03 अलवा वादी गण भू ह एवा# स्वात्वा ह- किनण3य एवा# कि4क्री6 परिर र। 2- यह कि माननय न्ययलय प्रकिवादी गण किवारुद्ध वादी भू!मिमा से#ब#धा मा य किनषेधाज्ञा किनण3य एवा# कि4क्री6 परिर र प्रकिवादी गण & स्वाय# य अपन अमिधान& माध्यमा से &ई किवावादी उत्पन्न न र, प्रवा+ न र, एवा# हस्क्षप किय जोन से प्रकिब#मिधा किय जोन जोयपत्र प्रदीन र। 3- यह कि वादी गण & प्रकिवादी गण से इसे वादी से#प!ण3 वादी व्यय दिदीलय जोवा। 4- यह कि अन्य अन&षे जो& माननय न्ययलय उचि) सेमाझे वादी गण & प्रकिवादी गण से प्रदीन रई जोवा।" 6. The plaintiffs’ application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC (Annexure 4 P-4) by which they sought amendment in their prayer clause-1 of the plaint which is also necessary to note here which reads as under:- " यह कि वादी गण द्वार अपन वादी पत्र )ह गय अन&षे 6 किF 01 मा स्पस्ट रूप से खासेर न#बर उल्लखा रन भू!ल गय ह- जिजोसे वाह से#+&मिधा र हुए स्पस्ट रन )ह ह- जिजोसे माननय न्ययलय अनमाकि से अन&षे 6 किF 01 मा " यह कि ---- ह एवा# स्वात्वा ह-" बदी " खसरा 238 राकबा 1.35 हे० भूमि नदी किकनरा बागीचा, बालभूद्र प्रसदी शुक्ल अर्थात वादीगीण क वारिरासन" क हे#, खसरा न$बारा 293 राकबा 0.84 हे० भूमि शिशुवारा प्रसदी क वारिरासन" क& भूमि हे#, खसरा न$बारा 511 राकबा 1.25 हे० भूमि क" प्रकितवादी क $क 01 अकिनल क रा शुक्ल न प्यारालल कि)त शुधुरा ग्रा दीतरा,गी क" किवाक्रया करा दिदीया हे#, खसरा न$बारा 620 राकबा 2.21 हे0 भूमि क" प्रकितवादी क $क 01 अकिनल क रा शुक्ल न भूगीवात प्रसदी वा ग्रा अ लडीहे क" किवाक्रया करा दिदीया हे#, खसरा न$बारा 604/1 तलबा राकबा 1.428 हे० भूमि जो" किक बालभूद्र प्रसदी शुक्ल क वारिरासन" अर्थात वादीगीण क हे# खसरा न$बारा 190 राकबा 0.90 हे० )रा किनर्मि 2त कन )रा प्रकितवादी क $क 01 अकिनल क रा शुक्ल अ)न किहेस्स )रा ककिबाजो हे# तर्था बालभूद्र प्रसदी शुक्ल क वारिरासन अर्थात वादीगीण अ)न किहेस्स )रा ककिबाजो हे# एवा$ प्रकितवादी क $क 06 नष शुक्ल अ)न किहेस्स )रा किनवासरात हे#, खसरा न$बारा 196/1, 198 एवा$ 199 राकबा क शु6 0.02 हे० 0.02 हे० 0.02 हे० बालभूद्र प्रसदी क वारिरासन" अर्थात वादीगीण क किहेस्स क& भूमि हे#। खसरा न$बारा 220 राकबा 0.036 हे० भूमि ई ल बाडी बालभूद्र प्रसदी शुक्ल क वारिरासन" अर्थात वादीगीण क हे#, खसरा न$बारा 225 राकबा 0.089 हे० भूमि अधिधुया क"ठारा बालभूद्र प्रसदी शुक्ल क वारिरासन" अर्थात वादीगीण क हे# खसरा न$बारा 397 राकबा 0.202 हे० भूमि बाड़ा क"ठारा , 1/3 , प्रकितवादी क्र $क 06 नष शुक्ल एवा$ बाक& शुष किहेस्स , वादीगीण क हेक एवा$ किहेस्स हे# इस प्रकरा खसरा न$बारा 607/1 राकबा 0.413 हे० भूमि )रान बाड़ा , बालभूद्र प्रसदी शुक्ल क वारिरासन" अर्थात वादीगीण क हे# खसरा$ न$बारा 531 राकबा लगीभूगी 0.5340 हे० भूमि क" शिशुवाप्रसदी क द्वारा सधुरा क" किवाक्रया किकया जो चाक हे#, इसक अलवा प्रकितवादी क $क 01 अकिनल क रा शुक्ल क द्वारा क"ट रा"डी एवा$ दीतरा,गी रा"डी क& भूमि लगीभूगी 7-8 एकड़ा भूमि क" किवाक्रया करा दिदीया हे#" जो&4र से#+&मिधा रन )ह ह-।" 7. From perusal of the proposed amendment in prayer column of the plaint, it clearly reveals that though it is the clarificatory but it can not be permitted to incorporate in the prayer column as the prayer made in the plaint should be very specifically based on the pleadings made in the plaint. The clarification should be in the body of the plaint and not in the prayer column. The learned trial Court has also observed that the proposed amendment is a vague one which can not be permitted to incorporate in the prayer column. 5 8. The Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC provided that the relief to be specifically stated which reads as under :- “Relief to be specifically stated — Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement.” 9. After considering the entire material produced by the petitioners in the present writ petition and having gone through the pleadings of the plaint as well as the application filed by the petitioners for amendment in their plaint, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court holding that the proposed amendment is vague one, which can not be permitted to be incorporated in the prayer column of the plaint. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit