1 CGHC010383232026 2026:CGHC:42850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1282 of 2026 1 - Sunil Jaiswal @ Pappu S/o Late Chhedilal Jaiswal, Aged About 50 Years, Caste Kalar, R/o Village -Bamhnidih, Tahsil -Champa, District -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shashikant Jaiswal S/o Late Chhedilal Jaiswal, Aged About 60 Years, Caste Kalar, R/o Village -Bamhnidih, Tahsil -Champa, District -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 2 - Kiran Jaiswal W/o Rupchandra Jaiswal, Aged About 57 Years, Caste Kalar, R/o Village -Bamhnidih, Tahsil -Champa, District -Janjgir -Champa (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District -Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Rashmi Jaiswal @ Baby W/o Prem Jaiswal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No. 17 Maa Gangai Ward, Gandai, Tahsil-Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Now Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 5 - Jyoti Jaiswal W/o Sanjay Jaiswal, R/o Marari Mohalla, Near Sai Mandir, Street Under Shukla Nursing Balaghat, District Balaghat (M.P.) 6 - Smt. Dipti Jaiswal W/o Vinod Jaiswal @ Kallu, R/o Ward No. 12 Kachharipara Baikunthpur, District -Koriya (C.G.) 7 - Smt. Preeti Jaiswal W/o Kishan Kumar Jaiswal, R/o Ward No. 14 Veer Sawarkar Ward, Dipka, Tahsil -Dipka, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate. For State : Mr. Manish Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.10.09 11:56:41 +0530 2 01-10-2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 14-08-2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Champa, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.12-A/2020 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is plaintiff before the learned trial Court. He is prosecuting a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction over the suit property situated at Village Bamhnidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa. The suit was filed 15-12-2020 and after filing of the written statement on 10-12-2021 by the defendants No.1 and 2 the learned trial Court framed the issues on 29- 01-2025. Thereafter, an application for amendment in the plaint was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18-08-2025, however, with respect to the amended pleadings no issues have been framed by the learned trial Court. Though the plaintiff’s evidence has been recorded and the case has been fixed for recording of defendants’ evidence, but the additional issue is required to be framed in the suit in view of the amended pleadings of the plaintiff. He would further submit that in absence of proper issues no effective adjudication could be possible with respect to the issue involved in the suit. The plaintiff filed an application on 27-06-2026 and proposed amended issues which is required to be framed in the suit, but the said application has been rejected by the learned trial Court holding that the plaintiff’s evidence has already been recorded and on earlier occasion an opportunity was provided to the parties to raise objection, but none of the parties have raised any objection on the issues framed by the learned trial Court. Since the case is at defendants’ evidence stage, there is no need to amend the issues which have already been framed, therefore, the learned trial Court has rejected the application, whereas the issues framed by the learned trial Court is defective 3 one and requires amendment. He would also submit that before passing the decree the learned trial Court is empowered to amend the issue which has already been framed, yet the learned trial Court has rejected the application. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from perversity and jurisdictional error and the same is liable to be set aside. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. The plaintiff has initially filed the suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction over the suit property situated at Village Bamhnidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa which was with respect to the land and house situated there. The plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint about the earlier partition of the subject property and also the will deed dated 07-12- 2016 as the same has been executed fraudulently. He claimed that the subject property was obtained by the plaintiff in partition and it was remained in possession of late Chhedilal Jaiswal during his lifetime. Thereafter, the alleged will deed was executed on 07-12-2016 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 which is forged and fabricated. It is also the pleading that when defendants No.1 and 2 filed the application for mutation he raised objection, yet their name have been mutated in revenue record. With all these pleadings the plaintiff has filed the suit. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint by which he introduced certain more facts and sought amendment that after death of late Chhedilal his LRs. are having one seventh equal share each instead of one third share. The said amendment was allowed by the learned trial Court on 18-08-2025. Before the amendment in the plaint the trial Court has framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties on 29-01-2025 which is as under :- “01& D;k oknh xzke cEguhMhg] rglhy pkaik fLFkr Hkwfe [kljk ua- 163 jdck 0-243 gsDVs;j] [kljk ua- 775 jdck 0-19 gsDVs;j [kljk ua- 1602 4 jdck 0-202 gsDVs;j] [kljk ua- 1603 jdck 0-134 gsd~- [kljk ua- 1608@4 jdck 0-34 gsd~- ,oa xzke vojkMhg rglhy pkaik fLFkr Hkwfe [kljk ua- 103@01 jdck 0-55 ,dM Hkwfe ftls okn i= esa oknxzLr laifÙk Øekad 01 dgk x;k gS dk 1@3 va'k dk Lokeh gS \ 02& D;k oknh mijksDr oknxzLr Hkwfe ftls oknxzLr laifÙk Øekad 01 dgk x;k gS esa ls 1@3 Hkkx dk caVokjk djkdj fjä vkf/kiR; izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 03& D;k oknh oknxzLr laifÙk Øekad 02 [kljk ua- 1080@46 jdck 0-010 gsDVs- esa cus edku dk caVokjkukek fnukad 21-09-2005 ds vk/kkj ij mldk ,dek= Lokeh gS \ 04& D;k oknh rglhynkj cEguhMhg ds }kjk ukekarj.k izdj.k Øekad 22 v&06@2020@21 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-10-2020 ,oa ukekarj.k izdj.k Øekad 23 v&06@2020@21 es a ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 23-10-2020 dks voS/k ,oa 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 05& D;k oknh mijksDr oknxzLr laifÙk Øekad 01 ,oa 02 ds laca/k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 06& D;k oknh us vius okn i= dk mfpr ewY;kadu dj mfpr U;k;ky; 'kwYd pLik fd;k gS \ 07& lgk;rk ,oa O;; \ 5. From perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the learned trial Court has observed that on 29-01-2025 the issues have been framed and opportunity to raise objection on the said issues have been provided to the parties, but no objection has been raised by any of the parties. Thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff have been recorded and after completion of his evidence the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence. On 27-06-2026 the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC in which 5 he proposed amendment in the issues framed by the learned trial Court in the following manner :- 3& ;g fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds }kjk okn iz'u Øa0 3 fufeZr fd;k gS] fd Þ D;k oknh oknxzLr lEifRr Øa0 2 [k0ua0 1080@46 jdck 0-010 gs0 es cus edku dk cVokjkukek fnukad 21@09@2005 ds vk/kkj ij mldk ,dek= Lokeh gS \ ß oknh ds okn i= ds vuqlkj oknxzLr laifÙk Øa0 2 [k0ua0 1080@46 jdck 0-010 gs0 esa cus edku dk uhp dk Hkkx gSA oknh us [k0ua0 1080@46 ds lEiw.kZ HkwHkkx ij LoRokf/kdkjh dh ?kks"k.kk gsrq nkok izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA bl fy;s fufeZr okniz'u Øa0 3 esa fuEu la'kks/ku fd;k tkuk U;k; fgr esa mfpr gksxk %& Þ D;k oknh oknxzLr lEifRr Øa0 2 [k0ua0 1080@46 jdck 0-010 gs0 es cus edku ds uhps ds Hkkx dk cVokjkukek fnukad 21@09@2005 ds vk/kkj ij mldk ,dek= Lokeh gS \ß 4& ;g fd oknh us vius okn i= ds vuqrks"k ds iSjk Øa0 4 esa ;kpuk fd;k gS] fd Þ;g ?kksf"kr djus dh d`ik djsa fd olh;rukek fnukad 07@12@2016 QthZ ,oa dwVjfpr gksus ds dkj.k voS/kkfud gSA ß mDr ;kpuk ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds }kjk dksbZ okn iz'u fufeZr ugh fd;k x;k gS] blfy;s mDr ;kpuk ds fujkdj.k ds fy;s fuEufyf[kr vfrfjDr okn iz'u fufeZr fd;k tkuk U;k; fgr esa mfpr gksxk %& ÞD;k olh;rukek fnukad 07@12@2016 QthZ ,oa dwVjfpr gksus ds dkj.k voS/kkfud gS \ ß 6. It is necessary to notice here the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC which reads as under :- “2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.-(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. 6 (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if the issue relates to— (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.] XXXX XXXX XXXX 5. Power to amend and strike out, issues.—(1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.” 7. From perusal of the pleadings of the parties, plaint and written statement, it transpires that the learned trial Court has framed sufficient issues which are involved in the case to be determined. Even otherwise, the learned trial Court is empowered to amend the issue before passing the judgment. Particularly when the plaintiff’s evidence has been recorded and the case has been fixed for recording of defendants’ evidence, at this state it cannot be ordered for amendment in the issues keeping in view that on the existing issues, the plaintiff has already laid his evidence knowing fully well of his case and the evidence available to him. 8. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application filed the 7 petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC. Consequently, the present writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil