NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 377 of 2024 • Smt. Janki Bai, D/o Late Shri Durga Prasad, Aged About 59 Years, Cost Kalar R/o Village Tarada, P.O. Tarada, Tahsil &

District Koraba, Chhattisgarh, Mob. 9329635385 ---- Petitioner Versus

1. Har Prasad, S/o Nanhi @ Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 61 Years, Cast Kalar, R/o Village Nayagaon, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

2. Smt. Vimala Bai, W/o Har Prasad, Aged About 55 Years, Cast Kalar, R/o Village Nayagaon, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

3. Goldi, S/o Harprasad, Aged About 40 Years, Cast Kalar, R/o Village Nayagaon, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

4. Amit Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Harprasad, Aged About 35 Years, Cast Kalar, R/o Village Nayagaon, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

5. Smt. Shanti Bai, D/o Late Durga Prasad, Aged About 63 Years, Cast Kalar, R/o Bhai Sama, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

6. Hulas Ram, S/o Radheshyam, Aged About 52 Years, (Mother Kunti Bai (Dead) D/o Late Durga Prasad) Cast Kalar R/o Mohalaeen Bhatha, Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

7. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Koraba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.7 : Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order On Board

02.05.2024

1. Heard the matter finally.

2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the 2^nd Civil Judge, Class- II, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.7-A/2020 {Janki Bai Vs. Harprasad & Others}, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid civil suit for declaration of her title, partition and possession over the suit land, in which, she has also pleaded that respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has got registered the sale deed fraudulently in favour of his wife respondent No.2/defendant No.2 (Smt. Vimala Bai) from petitioner/plaintiff and her sisters (mother of defendants No.5 & 6). It is further submitted that due to inadvertence relief has not been sought for to declare alleged sale deed dated 04.06.1997 null and void, therefore, petitioner/plaintiff filed the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the pleading and relief clause and some other amendment was also sought, which has been declined by the learned trial Court only in the view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC that since trial has been started, hence now amendment cannot be permitted. It is further submitted that petitioner/plaintiff has not brought any new fact in the pleading, rather illegality of sale deed has already been pleaded and only on that count, relief clause has been sought to be amended, because, without declaring the null and void the subject sale deed, which has been obtained fraudulently, other relief sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff may not be granted. Hence, proposed amendment is necessarily required to be impleaded in the plaint for just decision of the dispute, but learned trial Court without considering the aforesaid facts has dismissed the application on trivial ground, which is perverse and illegal. Therefore, it is prayed that amendment application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC (Annexure-P/2) may be allowed and trial Court may be directed to permit amendment as sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff in his application (Annexure-

P/2).

4. Petitioner has filed copy of plaint, which shows that she has filed the civil suit for declaration of her title, partition and possession over the suit land claiming inter alia, that, suit land is their ancestral property, which has been fraudulently transferred to respondent No.2/defendant No.2 by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 tak