Disposed

Brijmohan v. Balram Kumar Soni

Chhattisgarh HC15 Aug 2024WP227/13/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs in a permanent injunction suit sought to amend the plaint to add a relief of declaration of title and correct typographical errors. The High Court held the amendment necessary for fair adjudication since evidence had not commenced, quashed the dismissal order, allowed the amendment with costs, and directed expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing amendment application quashed; amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC allowed subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- cost to defendant No.1.

Brijmohan Vs Balram Kumar Soni — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:31076

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 13 of 2023

¶6

1 - Brijmohan S/o Ramsevak Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Sahu Gali, Surajpur, Police Station, Post Office And Tahsil Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Manmohan S/o Ramsevak Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Sahu Gali, Surajpur, Police Station, Post Office And Tahsil Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Balram Kumar Soni S/o Gopal Ram Soni Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Peedha At Present R/o Golden Medicose, Orgi, Police Station And Tahsil Orgi, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioners : Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri A.K. Shukla, Advocate. For respondent/State : Shri Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

Order On Board

16/08/2024 :

KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2024.08.16 17:37:20 +0530

¶19

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.11.2022 whereby the application preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was dismissed by the 4^th Civil Judge, Class-I, Surajpur, in Civil Suit No.24-A/2013.

¶20

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the year 2013 and prior to the settling

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

date, the proposed amendment application has been moved for adding the relief of title, as the petitioners/plaintiffs had received a notice from the Court of SDO on 6^th December, 2021 in a revenue case. So, when the title is directly in dispute, relief to that effect was sought to be added and certain typographical errors are also sought to be corrected by the proposed amendment. The trial Court, while dismissing the amendment application, has assigned a reason that after commencement of trial, the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit. Hence this petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that limitation of 3 years for claiming title has been prescribed under the statute. If the amendment is allowed, then prejudice would be caused to the other side. He further submits that the suit was filed in the year 2013 and substantial period is over, though in the written statement, title has already been challenged, but the petitioners have moved the application for amendment belatedly and no due diligence has been pleaded or explained. For the subsequent event, the amendment should not be allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper.

¶24

Considering the submissions, particularly considering the nature of the proposed amendment and the fact that the evidence of the parties has not yet been commenced, earlier the suit was filed for permanent injunction, amendment has been proposed for adding the relief of title and also to correct certain typographical errors, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and another {AIR 2002 SC 3369} and the principles laid down in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another {AIR 2022 SC 4256}, this Court is of the view that proposed amendment is necessary for proper and fair adjudication of the case and the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the said application.

¶25

For the foregoing, the impugned order is quashed. The application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the petitioners/plaintiffs to

¶26

3 / 3

¶27

defendant No.1, through his lawyer. The concerned Court shall permit the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment in the plaint and shall also grant an opportunity to the other side to file consequential amendment, if required.

¶28

With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶29

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for compliance and the concerned Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶32

Judge

¶33

Barve

Brijmohan v. Balram Kumar Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijmohan v. Balram Kumar Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Luniya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satnami Samaj Samrupara Vs Ram Kumar Tandon

Sunny Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Santosh Kumar Keshari

Pushpa Vs Ramnath

Rita Jalan Vs Amit Jalan