NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P(227) No.676 of 2019 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Sh. Ramrasal Agrawal Aged About

65 Years R/o 602, Ahmedji Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus

1. Sanjay Agrawal S/o Late Sh. Ramrasal Agrawal Aged About 63 Years R/o Purani Basti, Baniyapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Asit Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Sh. Ramrasal Agrawal Aged About

79 Years R/o Ahmedji Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Mangal Vinod Agrawal S/o Late Sh. Ramrasal Agrawal Aged About

70 Years R/o Baniyapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Smt. Kumud Agrawal W/o Late Shri Ramnivaran Agrawal Aged About 74 Years R/o Gram Ghoradi, Nadi, Chowk, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

6. Smt. Kamal Agrawal S/o Late Sh. Ramrasal Agrawal Aged About

68 Years R/o Baniyapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner: Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1: Shri Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondent No.2/State: Shri Sachidanand Yadav, PL.

For Respondents No.3 to 5: Shri Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order on Board

19.07.2024

1. This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2019 passed by the 3^rd Civil Judge, Class-1, Raipur in Civil Suit No.34-A/2012 whereby, the application preferred by the Petitioner/Plaintiff under Order 6 Rule

17 r/w Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit on 02.11.2012 stating that the Will dated 04.03.2010 executed by his Late father namely Shri Ramrasal Agrawal is not genuine and the same may be declared void and also for claiming title over the suit property. In the said suit, an amendment application has been filed, which was disallowed by the order impugned. Hence, this Petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff submits that earlier, the Plaintiff’s evidende was closed in the year 2014 and thereafter, other legal heirs of his father have also been arrayed as party Defendants in the year 2016. He further submits that some documents have also been taken on record vide order dated 05.02.2019 and the case is at present at the stage of recording further evidence of the Plaintiff, therefore, no prejuidice would be caused if the said amendment is allowed. He further submits that though the amendment application has been filed belatedly, but the same is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the case. He further submits that the said application is bona fide and the Petitioner/Plaintiff had no intention to cause any delay in the trial and as the trial Court has taken a hypertechnical approach and dismissed the said application withiout assiging proper reasons, therefore, considering all the above aspects, the same may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, Shri Thakur supports the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner whereas, Shri Tiwari supports the order impugned. However, they submit that they have no objection if the amendment which has been proposed at para-6(i) of the said application, which is an admitted fact that the land was recorded in the name of the mother of the Petitioner/Plainitff namely Smt Kaushalya Devi Agrawal, is allowed. They, however, contend that the Petitioner/Plaintiff has not revealed the true fact that the FIR has been lodged by the Petitioner’s brother against his father and the said fact was very well in his knowledge. Shri Tiwari placed reliance on the judgement rendered in the matter of Vidyabai and Others vs. Padmalatha and Another reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409 and submits that the proposed amendment at para 6(ii) of the application is not required as unnecessary pleadings have been made.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed herewith carefully.

6. It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive ri