An amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC cannot be granted after the commencement of trial unless the party establishes that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier, particularly when the application is a repetitive attempt to re-agitate previously rejected pleadings.

NAFR

Order on board

1. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (FTC), Surajpur, in Civil Suit No. A/50/2011. By the said order, the learned trial Court has rejected the application preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. Aggrieved by the rejection of the amendment application, the petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, have instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties described in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ appended to the plaint. Schedule ‘A’ comprises land bearing Khasra No. 13, admeasuring 0.98 hectares and Khasra No. 14, admeasuring 0.59 hectares, having a total area of 1.57 hectares. Schedule ‘B’ comprises land bearing Khasra No. 13, admeasuring 0.49 hectares and Khasra No. 14, admeasuring 0.29 hectares. Both the Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ properties are situated at Village Shashipur, Patwari Halka No. 41, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (formerly District Surguja), Chhattisgarh.

3. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint is that one Moinuddin, husband of plaintiff No. 4 and father of plaintiffs No. 1 to 3, died on 18.02.2002. After his demise, plaintiff No. 4 was residing at Hyderabad along with her mother, while plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 were minors. It has been pleaded that Fatima, the sister of plaintiffs No. 1 to 3, had died about thirty years back, and her husband, Dilshad Ahmed, had also passed away. Defendant No. 2 is stated to be the son of the said Fatima. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Moinuddin, defendant No. 2 got his name mutated in the revenue records by falsely projecting himself as the son of Moinuddin and, on that basis, secured mutation jointly with plaintiffs No. 1 to 3, despite having no right, title or interest in the suit property.

4. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 1, despite being aware of the lack of title of defendant No. 2 over the suit property, purchased the part of Schedule ‘B’ property from defendant No. 2 through a registered sale deed dated 09.09.2004 for a stated consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The plaintiffs contend that they neither received any part of the sale consideration nor had any knowledge of the said transaction, as plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 were minors and plaintiff No. 4 was residing at Hyderabad. According to them, they came to know about the sale deed only on 07.03.2011, after defendant No. 1 started collecting building materials on the Schedule ‘B’ land on 02.03.2011, for the construction of the house, whereupon the present civil suit came to be instituted.

5. The plaint further avers that defendant No. 1 subsequently transferred a portion of the Schedule ‘B’ property to defendants No. 4 and 5 by a registered sale deed dated 03.03.2011. Thereafter, defendants