1 CGHC010081252025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 191 of 2025 1 - Harilal S/o Dhanau Aged About 43 Years Caste- Satnami, 2 - Vinod S/o Dhanau Aged About 32 Years Caste- Satnami, 3 - Shivlal S/o Dhanau Aged About 36 Years Caste- Satnami, 4 - Shashi D/o Dhanau Aged About 28 Years Caste- Satnami, 5 - Noni Bai W/o Dhanau Aged About 65 Years Caste- Satnami, All are R/o Village Nariyara, Tahsil Malkharauda, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Dataram S/o Mohit Ram Aged About 65 Years Caste- Satnami, 2 - Yadram S/o Dataram Aged About 28 Years Caste- Satnami, 3 - Nankidau S/o Dataram Aged About 25 Years Caste- Satnami, Respondents No. 1 to 3 are R/o Village Nariyara, Tahsil Malkharauda, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri Parth Jha, Advocate. For State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 30.09.2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.09.30 18:08:45 +0530 2 21.01.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Malkharoda, District Sakti in Civil Suit No.29-A/2023 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the plaint has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial court has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioners by saying that the entire nature of the suit would be changed, however, there is no inconsistent pleading taken by the plaintiffs and it is only a clarificatory and additional Khasra Number which is sought to be impleaded in the plaint. Therefore, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the plaint may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that they have no objection if such amendment is permitted to be incorporated by the plaintiffs in their plaint. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of documents annexed with the writ petition it transpires that petitioners are the plaintiffs before the trial court where they are prosecuting a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and partition over the suit property shown in Schedule-A,B&C annexed with the plaint situated at village Nariyara, Tehsil Malkharoda, District Sakti. During pendency of suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC (Annexure P/4) on 12.11.2024 and sought amendment by incorporating additional paragraph 6-A in the plaint whereby they sought insertion of another land of Khasra No.1132/4, Area 0.380 Hect. 3 in which also they claimed partition. The said application was rejected by the trial court vide impugned order observing that by the proposed amendment the entire nature of the suit would be changed; partition proceeding is already pending before Tehsil Court, and therefore, the same cannot be permitted to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. 6. In the plaint, Annexure P/2, the plaintiffs have pleaded about their claim over the subject property of Schedule-A,B&C annexed with the plaint, and made relevant pleadings, however, in the application filed by them under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, they sought amendment in paragraph 6 of the plaint by incorporating paragraph 6-A which reads as under: “06-(v) ;g fd okn Hkwfe ds vfrfjDr oknhx.k dh iqLrSuh Hkwfe [kljk uacj 1132@4 jdck 0-384 gsDVs;j Hkwfe ftl ij oknhx.k dk Hkh gd] LoRo ,oa dCtk gS] dks izfroknhx.k ds }kjk xyr <ax ls cWVokjk djk fy;k x;k gS ftl dkj.k ls okn Hkwfe ds ewy :i ess [kljk uacj 1132@4 jdck 0-380 gsDVs;j Hkwfe dk cWVokjk ewy nkok ds lkFk lkFk fd;k tkosA*^ In addition, they also sought amendment in paragraph 6 of the plaint by inserting the following : “[kljk uacj 1299@2 jdck 0-336 gsDVs;j Hkwfe dks*^ 7. In view of the pleadings made in the plaint and the proposed amendment, this court does not find any inconsistency in the nature of the suit and proposed amendment. Even if the proposed amendment would be permitted to be incorporated in the plaint, there is no change of nature of suit, but it is only an addition of Khasra Number in the suit property already involved in the suit. 8. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 4 Rule 17 CPC and the order impugned requires interference by this court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.01.2025 is set aside. The application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed. They are permitted to carry out necessary amendment in their plaint as per their application dated 12.11.2024. The trial court is directed to proceed in the suit in accordance with law. 10. Interim relief granted earlier on 17.03.2025 stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder