1 2026:CGHC:14429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 247 of 2026 Sunil Kumar Tiwari Son Of Late Ashok Kumar Tiwari Aged About 45 Years Resident - Ashok Vihar Road, Phase -2, In Front Pragati Park, Rajkishor Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Special Power Of Attorney Holder - Pramod Kumar Pathak Son Of Late Ganesh Prasad Pathk, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Kashyap Colony, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Triveni Devi Wife Of Late Ramdayal Tiwari Aged About 85 Years Resident - Devrikala, Post Bharni, Tehsil Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Through The Special Power Of Attorney Holder - Ashok Kumar Pathak S/o. Late Ganesh Prasad Pathak, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Karbala Road, Kanupriya, Niwas, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ishwari Pathak W/o Krishna Kumar Pathak Aged About 55 Years Resident - Hatri Chowk, Juna Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Devjani Pandey W/o Dilip Pandey Aged About 54 Years Resident Of In Front Of Kumhar Para School, Karbala Road,bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jitendra Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Ramdulare Tiwari Aged About 47 Years Resident Of Kanchan Vihar Colony, Chantidih, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 5 - Anil Kumar Tiwari Son Of Late Ashok Tiwari Aged About 47 Years Residents Of Ashok Vihar Phase-2, In Front Of Pragati Park, Rajkishor Nagar, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sushil Kumar Tiwari Son Of Late Ashok Tiwari Aged About 43 Years Residents Of Ashok Vihar Phase-2, In Front Of Pragati Park, Rajkishor Nagar, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Akhil Kumar Tiwari Son Of Late Ashok Tiwari Aged About 40 Years Residents Of Ashok Vihar Phase-2, In Front Of Pragati Park, Rajkishor Nagar, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent No.8 : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 25/03/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the learned Fourth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. A/191/2021 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint has been rejected. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. He filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property against the defendants. After receiving the written statement filed by the defendants, he moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the pleadings of the plaint. He would submit that earlier, he pleaded in the plaint that the sale deed was in favour of Smt. Gulaba Bai and now by way of amendment, he wants to elaborate the said pleading in paragraph 2 of his plaint by introducing the paragraph 2(a) that the consideration with respect to sale deed executed in favour of Gulaba Bai dated 08.03.2002 was provided by her husband Ramdulare Tiwari and, therefore, it was not the self acquired property of Gulaba Bai but it was the joint property of their family. The learned trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application by saying that by way of proposed amendment the nature of suit is being changed, therefore, the application has been rejected. He would further submit that the suit is at initial stage and the evidence has not been started yet. The defendants have every right to get their pleadings amended in their written statement, therefore, the application for amendment ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Court. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu V/s Suman Agrawal (Bindal) and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 2615. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4 5. From perusal of the copy of the plaint Annexure – P/2, it reveals that the petitioner has pleaded in paragraph 2 of his plaint which is as under:- “यह कि वादी  दीदी श्रीमकि गुलाबा बाई किवारी  द्वारी पंजी  किवाक्रय पंत्र दिदीनां 08.03.2002  मध्यम से, भू"मिम स्वाम गु%वार्ध'नां प्रसेदी दुबा किपं-स्वा रीमस्वारूपं दुबा  स्वामिमत्वा एवा आमिर्धपंत्य  भू"मिम जी% कि म.जी सेरीण्डा पं.ह.नां. 20 हसेला वा जिजीला किबालासेपंरी म2 स्थि4 खसेरी नां. 299 म2 से रीबा 0.52 एड़ भू"मिम य री किबाजी हुई, जी% कि नांमरीण पंश्चा: खसेरी नां. 299/2 रीबा 0.52 एड़  रूपं म2 श्रीमकि गुलाबा बाई  नांम पंरी दीजी' किय गुय, भू"मिम खसेरी नां 299/2 रीबा 0.52 एड़ % आगु वादीभू"मिम से सेबा%मिर्ध किय जीवागु।” 6. On 17.03.2023, the defendant No.1 filed her written statement and she denied that Smt. Gulaba Bai was not the sole owner of the suit property but she alongwith Gulaba Bai had purchased the suit property jointly and denied the sole title of Gulaba Bai over the suit property, it is relevant to notice here, para 2 of the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 which reads as under :- “यह कि वादी पंत्र   किडा .2  सेबार्ध म2 यह स्पष्ट रूपं से इंरी ह@ कि वादी  दीदी श्रीम गुलाबा बाई अ ला गु%वार्ध'नां प्रसेदी दुबा से उसे स्वामिमत्वा एवा आमिर्धपंत्य  सेरीडा स्थि4 भू"मिम ख. नां. 299 म2 से 0.52 एड़ भू"मिम क्रय किय था, बाल्किE सेह थ्य यह ह@ कि उक् भू"मिम % श्रीम गुलाबा बाई, प्रकिवादी क्र.1 श्रीम कित्रवाण दीवा  सेथा मिमलारी सेयक् रूपं से क्रय किए था, जिजीसे सेबार्ध म2 किवास् ब्य.री आगु किवाशेष थानां म2 दिदीय जी रीह ह@।” 7. On 09.01.2026, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint and wants to insert paragraph 2(a) in the plaint which reads as under : "वास्वा म2 वादी  दीदी श्रीमकि गुलाबा बाई अनांपंढ, आय किवाह गुहण मकिहला था औरी सेयक् पंरिरीवारी म2 किनांवासे री था। श्रीमकि गुलाबा बाई  पंकि श्री रीमदुलारी किवारी जी सेर्धनां सेपंन्न ह%री पं"री पंरिरीवारी  जीवा%पंजी'नां री रीह औरी अपंनां स्वाय  आय से अपंनां पंत्नित्नां  नांम पंरी किवाक्र  % पं"ण' प्रकिफला भूगुनां री वादीभू"मिम % य किय जी% श्रीमकि गुलाबा बाई किवारी  स्वाअर्जिजीR नांह ह%री सेयक् पंरिरीवारी  सेपंत्तिT था जी% सेयक् पंरिरीवारी  सेदीस्य  नांम से य किय गुय औरी उसे पंरी श्री रीमदुलारी किवारी जी ह किबाजी चला आय।" 8. On a comparative reading of all these pleadings of the plaint, written statement as well as proposed amendment, it transpires that the 5 plaintiff initially pleaded that the suit property was purchased by Smt. Gulaba Bai and it was the property of her sole ownership in para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded “यह कि उपंरी%क्नांसेरी वादीभू"मिम, श्रीमकि गुलाबा बाई  एमत्र स्वामिमत्वा एवा आमिर्धपंत्य  भू"मिम रीह ह@S”. When the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the suit property was owned by Gulaba Bai only, now he can not change his stand that it was purchased from the income of joint family property to brought the nature of the suit property to be of joint family property by saying that the sale consideration was paid by her husband from the income of the joint family. In the proposed amendment, the plaintiff sought amendment in the pleading that the suit property was not the sole acquired property of Gulaba Bai but it is the joint family property which was purchased in the name of Gulaba Bai from the income of joint family, which apparently two inconsistently pleadings. From perusal of the order impugned, it also transpires that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the inconsistencies in the pleadings which has already been made and which has been proposed to be inserted by the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 9. The facts and consideration in the case of Dinesh goyal alias Pappu (Supra) is distinguishable with the facts of the present case, therefore, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner by the said judgment. 10. Accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit