1 CGHC010539022025 2026:CGHC:41084 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1354 of 2025 1 - M/s Bafna Dal Industries Through Its Sole Proprietor Dinesh Kumar Bafna, S/o Late Lakshmichand Bafna, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ramadheen Marg, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Presently Residing At Nandai Chowk, Ganj Line, Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Tinna Trade Pvt Ltd Registered Office At 6 Sultanpur, Mandi Road Mehroli New Delhi- 110030 2 - Tina Vitesh Traders Pvt Ltd Registered Officer At 6 Sultanpur, Mandi Road Mehroli New Delhi- 110030 3 - M/s Tinna Trade Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office At 177 Pratham Tal, Gyan Khand, Indra Puram Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 2 21/09/2026 The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 098/2015, whereby the applications preferred by the respondents under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the written statement, under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of CPC and under Section 45 read with Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, came to be allowed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court and has instituted the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- from the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. They also filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. seeking appropriate action against the alleged person and an application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC seeking permission to take certain documents on record. In addition, an application under Section 45 read with Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was filed for examination of the signatures appearing on the documents in question by a competent handwriting expert. 3. It is submitted that, by order dated 03.03.2022, the learned trial Court rejected all the aforesaid applications. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants challenged the same before this Court by filing 3 W.P.227 No. 569 of 2022. Though the defendants had challenged the rejection of all the aforesaid applications, the writ petition came to be allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court only to the extent of the rejection of the application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC. 4. It is further submitted that, thereafter, the defendants again approached the learned trial Court by filing an application dated 20.01.2025 seeking consideration of the applications earlier rejected by the trial Court. The learned trial Court, however, proceeded to allow the said applications, which action has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, except for the application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC, the remaining applications had already been rejected by the learned trial Court and the said rejection had not been set aside by this Court. According to the petitioner, the defendants could not have sought reconsideration of the applications which had already attained finality. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yashwant Sinha and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338. 6. None appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4 8. From perusal of the documents, it appears that the defendants had earlier filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the written statement, an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. seeking appropriate action against the alleged person, an application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC seeking permission to take documents on record, and an application under Section 45 read with Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking examination of the signatures appearing on the documents by a handwriting expert. 9. It is evident from the order dated 03.03.2022, which is annexed as Annexure P/9, it is evident that the learned trial Court had rejected all the aforesaid applications. The defendants thereafter challenged the said order before this Court in W.P. 227 No. 569 of 2022. 10. The relief clause of the said writ petition shows that the petitioners therein had sought, inter alia, setting aside of the order dated 03.03.2022 and allowing of the applications preferred under Order VI Rule 17, Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC and Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. It is necessary here to note here the said para 1 of the order in WP 227 No. 569 of 2022 which reads as under: “1. The petitioners/defendants have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1. Set aside the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 09B/2015. 10.2. Allow the applications under Order 6 5 rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC. 10.3. Allow the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 10.4. Grant the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 10.5. Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 11. After hearing the parties, the coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition only to the extent of the rejection of the application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC. Significantly, no specific observation was made in the said order with regard to the other applications, either allowing or rejecting the same. The relevant portion of paragraph 7 of the said order dated 04.02.2025 reads as under: “7. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ezeaku Pedde Rejamma (supra) and the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC, the application moved under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC is hereby allowed. The order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 098/2015, whereby the application moved by the defendants was rejected, is hereby set aside.” 12. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Yashwant Sinha (supra), particularly in paragraphs 85 and 86, is relevant in this context. The Supreme Court has explained that where a party institutes a proceeding seeking certain reliefs, the Court is required to consider the pleadings and material placed before it and render a judgment 6 either granting or declining the reliefs sought. Where a relief is not granted, the consequence depends upon the nature and tenor of the order passed by the Court. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Yashwant Sinha (supra) in para 85 & 86, it has been observed as under: “85. Where a party institutes a proceeding, if the proceeding is of a civil nature, there would be a cause of action. There would be reliefs sought on the basis of the cause of action. Materials are produced both in support and against the claim. The Court thereafter renders a judgement either accepting the case or rejecting the case. When the Court rejects the case, it necessarily involves refusing to grant the relief sought for by the plaintiff/petitioner. It may transpire that the petitioner may not press for certain reliefs. The Court may, after applying its mind to the case, find that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief and decline the prayers sought. It may also happen that the court does refer to the reliefs sought but thereafter does not undertake any discussion regarding the case for the relief sought and proceeds to non-suit the party. It is clear that in this case, it is the last aspect which is revealed by the judgment sought to be reviewed. 86. A judgment may be silent in regard to a relief which is sought by a party. It is apposite, in this regard, to notice Section 11 of the CPC. If a decree is silent, as regards any relief which is claimed by the plaintiff, Explanation V to Section 11 declares that the relief must be treated as declined. The Explanation reads as follows: “11. Res judicata- Explanation V.- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be 7 deemed to have been refused.” 13. On perusal of the application filed by the defendants before the learned trial Court on 20.11.2025, which has been placed on record as Annexure P/9, it appears that the defendants sought reconsideration of the applications which had earlier been rejected by the learned trial Court. It is, however, significant to note that the coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of W.P. No. 569 of 2022, specifically dealt with the application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC and allowed the writ petition to that limited extent. 14. When the relief claimed by the defendants in respect of the other applications had not been granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the same could not have been reopened by the learned trial Court on the basis that the writ petition filed by the defendants had been allowed. The expression “the writ petition is allowed” cannot be construed in isolation so as to mean that the entire writ petition stood allowed in respect of all the reliefs claimed therein. The operative portion of the order has to be read as a whole, and the actual relief granted by the Court has to be ascertained from the reasons as well as the operative directions contained therein. 15. In the present case, the writ petition was allowed only to the extent of the application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC. The remaining reliefs claimed in the writ petition stood declined. Consequently, the defendants could not have sought reconsideration of the other applications which had already been rejected by the learned 8 trial Court and in respect of which no relief had been granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court. 16. The learned trial Court, therefore, committed an error in entertaining and allowing the applications which had already been rejected and in respect of which the order of rejection had not been interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed to the aforesaid extent. The impugned order dated 02.12.2025 is hereby set aside, except to the extent that it concerns consideration of the application under Order VIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC. 17. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.09.23 15:13:50 +0530