CGHC010338272026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1213 of 2026 1 - Bahadur Banjare S/o Late Shri Babulal Banjare Aged About 60 Years 2 - Smt Shyam Bai D/o Late Shri Babulal Banjare Aged About 66 Years 3 - Smt Sampat Bai D/o Late Shri Babulal Banjare Aged About 64 Years 4 - Smt Laxmi Bai D/o Late Shri Babulal Banjare Aged About 55 Years 5 - Vikram Banjare S/o Shri Bahadur Banjare Aged About 28 Years 6 - Pankaj Banjare S/o Shri Bahadur Banjare Aged About 32 Years 7 - Yaksha Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Bahadur Banjare Aged About 30 Years 8 - Chandan Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Bahadur Banjare Aged About 26 Years 9 - Smt Munni W/o Shri Bahadur Banjare Aged About 58 Years All R/o Telibandha, Thana Telibandha, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Cause Title As Per The Current Age Which Is Mentioned In The Appeal Order Dated 24-06-2026 Passed By The Learned Appellate Court In Civil Appeal No.87a/2023) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kamla Bai W/o Shri Hazari Prasad Aged About 62 Years R/o Satnami Para Telibandha Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Bhaglal S/o Shri Bhunnulal Aged About 58 Years 3 - Smt Neetu Bai S/o Shri Bhaglal Aged About 40 Years 4 - Smt Sunita Bai S/o Shri Bhaglal Aged About 38 Years 5 - Smt Ranjita S/o Shri Bhaglal Aged About 32 Years 6 - Smt Lalita S/o Shri Bhaglal Aged About 30 Years 7 - Asharam S/o Shri Bhaglal Aged About 36 Years 8 - Ranjit Kumar S/o Shri Bhaglal Aged About 34 Years Respondents- t to 8 are R/o Village-Jugesar, Thana Mandir hasaud, Tehsil Arang, District-Raipur (CG) Wp227 1213 of 2026 2 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Anirudh Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Isha Jajodiya, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 18.09.2026 1. Present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the learned 5th Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit- 169A of 2017, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, who were prosecuting a Civil Suit against the defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit land having total area of 1.800 hectares in six different khasra numbers, situated at village-Telibandha, Tahsil and District-Raipur, CG. Initially, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.06.2023, against which the plaintiffs have filed their First Appeal before the learned 12th District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal-87A of 2023. The said appeal was decided on 16.10.2025 and by allowing the appeal, the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court for deciding the suit afresh on the pleadings, documentary evidence and material available on record. He would further submit that after its remand, the plaintiffs have filed an application on 08.12.2025 under Order Wp227 1213 of 2026 3 VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint. The said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court by the impugned order holding that permitting the plaintiffs to amend the pleading after remand of the case would amount to reopening the entire proceeding from ab initio. He would further submit that the proposed amendment is necessary for just decision of the case and it was only to correct the formal defects in the suit. The learned appellate court has already observed in its judgment that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with the evidence available on record and the issues have not been decided properly. The said observation of the learned appellate Court gives rise to the present application for amendment and it is detected only when a new counsel has been engaged by the plaintiffs in the case. He would further submit that no prejudice is being caused to the opposite side, as they are having ample opportunity to amend their pleading consequentially. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petition may be allowed. The plaintiffs may be permitted to carry out the necessary amendments in the plaint. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of the earlier judgment and decree dated 22.06.2023, it transpires that the plaintiffs’ suit has been dismissed holding that they have not been able to prove their case in preponderance of probability. The appellate court judgment has been annexed as Annexure-P5 and from its perusal, it transpires that the appellate Court has remanded the matter while invoking the provisions of Order 23A of the CPC for deciding the suit afresh in accordance Wp227 1213 of 2026 4 with law, on the basis of evidence available on record and the pleadings of the parties. 5. It is necessary here to note paragraphs 33 and 34 of the appellate Court judgment, which reads as under: “33- vr% izdj.k ds voyksdu ls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd izdj.k esa fufEkZr leLr fook|d iz'uksa ij fn;s x;s fu"d"kZ vuqlkj fMØh ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k gS A Qyr%% vkns'k 23 v O;0iz0la0 ds vkyksd esa mHk;i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr vfHkopu] nLrkosth lk{; e; 'kiFki=h; lk{; ij iqu% fopkj.k djrs gq, ekeyk fujkd`r djus gsrq fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izfriszf"kr fd;k tkos A 34- mijkDrkuqlkj ;g vihy va'kr% Lohdkj dj fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fnukad 22.06.2023 dks vikLr djrs gq, vkns'k 23 v O;0iz0la0 ds rgr izLrqr leLr lk{; ij iqu% xq.k&nks"k ij ekeys dk fujkdj.k djus dk funsZ'k nsrs gq, izfriszf"kr fd;k tkrk gS A”” 6. From perusal of above paragraphs, it transpires that there is no direction, or liberty in favour of the plaintiffs that they may amend their pleadings, or any observation made by the appellate court that the parties may amend their pleadings, or lead any additional evidence. It is a clear remand for re-hearing of the suit on the basis of pleadings and evidence already available on record. Plaintiffs, or the defendants have not been permitted by the appellate Court to amend their pleadings, or to lead additional evidence. 7. Further, from perusal of the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 read with 151 CPC, Annexure-P6, it transpires that petitioners/plaintiffs are claiming various amendments in the plaint including other reliefs also. The learned trial Court has observed in its order dated 24.06.2026 that certain reliefs which have not been claimed in the suit have also been proposed to be incorporated by way of proposed amendment which Wp227 1213 of 2026 5 was not claimed earlier. The learned trial Court has also observed that the suit has been instituted in the year 2017, pleadings have been exchanged between the parties, evidence was also led, which traveled up to appellate stage and it is only when the matter was remanded, application for amendment in the plaint has been filed. Since there is no direction by the appellate Court for amendment in the plaint, or written statement, the said application filed by the petitioners cannot be allowed. The proposed amendment would amount to reopen the entire case from its beginning and the nature of suit will also be changed. 8. From perusal of entire material annexed with the petition and also after having gone through the impugned order of the learned trial Court, I do not find any perversity, or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners before the learned trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.09.22 11:08:32 +0530