Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Pratima Vaishnav – Appellant
Versus
Vaidehi Devi – Respondent
WP227 No. 484 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Supervisory power of High Court - Jurisdiction to interfere with an order of the trial court exists where there is perversity or patent illegality - High Court may modify an order to allow only bona fide, necessary amendments while rejecting those that fundamentally alter the nature of the suit. (Paras 14, 21, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, initially basing her claim on ancestral title, a succession document, and adverse possession. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sought a comprehensive amendment to the plaint. The trial court rejected the application, observing that the proposed amendments sought to abandon the plea of adverse possession and fundamentally reconstruct the factual foundation of the suit. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that most of the proposed amendments were an attempt to reshape the suit by introducing facts known to the plaintiff prior to its institution, without offering satisfactory reasons for their initial omission. However, limited amendments relating to familial relationships, clerical corrections, and specific subsequent events were found necessary for efficient adjudication.
Issues: Whether the proposed amendments were merely clarificatory; whether they fundamentally altered the nature and complexion of the suit; and whether the trial court erred in exercising its discretion to reject the application.
Ratio Decidendi: An application for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 must be denied if it seeks to introduce an entirely new foundation for a claim or fundamentally changes the nature of the suit, especially after significant delays. Only those amendments that are bona fide, non-prejudicial, and necessary for the determination of the real controversy should be allowed.
Result: Writ petition partly allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nikhil Parakh
For the Respondents: Isha Jajodiya
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial courts may reject amendments that fundamentally alter the suit's nature. (Para 1 , 1 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. factual background involving ancestral property, succession, and adverse possession claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. amendments creating a new foundational case are generally impermissible. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. clarificatory or subsequent event amendments are permissible. (Para 14 , 15 , 21 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. procedural amendments should not substitute or transform original claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22) |
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kabirdham in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2019. By the said order, the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of the case from the Court below for kind perusal;
b. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been illegally rejected;
c. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC dated 17.08.2021 and permit the petitioner to carry out amendment in the plaint as proposed;
d. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the learned Trial Court to take the amended plaint on record and proceed with the trial in accordance with law;
e. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the proposed amendment is bona fide, necessary for determining the real controversy, and does not change the nature of the suit;
f. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay further proceedings of the civil suit pending before the learned Trial Court during the pendency of the present writ petition, in the interest of justice;
g. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order(s), direction(s) or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of the petition.”
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 57-A/2019 instituted before the learned trial Court seeking a declaration of title over her alleged ½ share in the suit property, declaration of her status as a co-owner thereof, and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. As pleaded in the plaint, the plaintiff and defendants No. 3 and 4 are real sisters; defendant No. 5 is their mother; defendants No. 1 and 2 are their maternal aunts (cqvk); and defendant No. 6 is another aunt. It is further averred that the plaintiff’s brother expired on 27.05.2017, and his widow has been residing with her parental family and is not concerned with the affairs of the family. It is also pleaded that, although the husband of defendant No. 6 has expired, leaving behind legal heirs, defendant No. 6 alone has been impleaded as a party defendant, being the head and representative of that branch of the family.
3. The suit pertains to agricultural lands admeasuring approximately 65.358 hectares comprised in about 50 khasra numbers situated at Village Sonpuri, P.H. No. 43, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham. According to the plaint, the lands were originally acquired by late Radhika Das, the grandfather of the plaintiff, through a registered sale transaction dated 14.02.1925 executed by Tulasi Das (Ex-Malgujar) for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/-, though the property was recorded in the name of Lord Shriram Vallabh. It is further pleaded that ceiling proceedings were initiated against Radhika Das in Case No. 48/B/91/197
