2026:CGHC:3995 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 48 of 2022

1 - Ku. Chetishtha Malik D/o Shri Aanand Malik Aged About 20 Years Power Of Attorney Holder Father Aanand Malik S/o Birakh Malik, R/o C-161, Second Floor, South City-2, Sohna Road Gurgaon Hariyana Present R/o Village Mungeli PHN-20, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

2 - Ku. Subhagya D/o Shri Aanand Malik Aged About 16 Years Petitioner No. 2, Is Minor Through Their Legal Guardian I.E. Father Namely Aanand Malik S/o Birakh Malik, Aged About 48 Years, R/o C-161, Second Floor, South City-2, Sohna Road Gurgaon Hariyana Present R/o Village Mungeli Phn-20, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3 - Leoan S/o Shri Aanand Malik Aged About 8 Years Petitioner No. 3, Is Minor Through Their Legal Guardian I.E. Father Namely Aanand Malik S/o Birakh Malik, Aged About 48 Years, R/o C-161, Second Floor, South City-2, Sohna Road Gurgaon Hariyana Present R/o Village Mungeli Phn-20, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Neelam Malik D/o Shri Chandra Singh Aged About 40 Years W/o Shri Aanand Malik, R/o C-161, Second Floor, South City-2, Sohna Road Gurgaon Hariyana Present R/o Village Mungeli Phn-20, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shrijan Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.2 / State: Shri Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

Order on Board

22/01/2026 This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of order dated 22/12/2021 passed by the 2^nd Civil Judge, Class -II, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (CG) (for short ‘Civil Judge’) in Civil Suit No.77-A/18 whereby an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs are the children of respondent No.1/defendant No.1. The petitioners had filed civil suit (Annexure P/2) against respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and State seeking a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of property comprised in piece of khasra No.29 area 9.30 hectares situated at P.H.No.20, village-Mungeli, District–Bemetara (CG). As per pleadings of the plaint, the said property was purchased by father of the petitioners/plaintiffs from the income of the joint family in the name of respondent No.1/defendant No.1. A memorandum of understanding was executed by and between the father of the petitioners/plaintiffs and respondent No.1/defendant No.1 on 27/08/2018 and it was agreed upon that the said property would never be sold till the plaintiffs attain the majority. The status of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 was only as a patron. As the petitioners came to know that respondent No.1 is inclined to sell the suit property, immediately, they filed a suit before the Civil Judge praying for the abovestated relief. Written statement in the civil suit was filed wherein respondent No.1 disputed the title of the suit property and it is pleaded that the suit property was purchased by her from her own source of income and the petitioners/plaintiff does not have any right or title over the suit property. As the purchase of the suit property was only an understanding that she would be treated as caretaker/patron in respect of the suit property, it was necessary for the petitioners to seek relief for declaration of title. Thus, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed on 08/11/2019 seeking amendment in the prayer clause adding the prayer of declaration of title in the suit and ancillary amendments in respect of Court fee and valuation etc. The said application was resisted by respondent No.1/defendant No.1. Learned Civil Judge, vide impugned order held that