Allowed

Suresh Meshram v. Mukund Bansod

Chhattisgarh HC19 Nov 2024WP227/364/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a Writ Petition challenging the dismissal of an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Court held that subsequent construction by the defendant during suit pendency mandated allowing the amendment seeking possession and demolition, directing trial courts to afford opposing counsel an opportunity. (Operator added: www.IndianKanoon.com was not cited)

What did the court decide?

Amendment application allowed; trial Court directed to afford opportunity to other side for consequential amendment.

Suresh Meshram Vs Mukund Bansod — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 2

2024:CGHC:45389

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 364 of 2023

¶6

1 - Suresh Meshram S/o Late Shri Sudama Meshram Aged About 52 Years Resident Of A - 15 Link Road Ashish Nagar West Risali, District Durg, (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 1 A)

¶7

2 - Sunil Kumar Meshram S/o Late Shri Sudama Meshram Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Flat No. 504, Madhukunj C O, Plot No. 82, Sector 19, Kharghar (Raigarh District) Pin 410210 Maharashtra. (Plaintiff No. 1 B)

¶8

3 - Vinita Kamal Bhalekar D/o Late Shri Sudama Meshram, Now Wife Of Kamal Bhojakar, Resident Of Quarter No. 4. 2nd Floor, Bhilai Nagarik Sahkari Bank, Street No. 24, Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 1 C)

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Mukund Bansod S/o Ambika Prasad Bansod R/o Beside House No. 906 Street No. 6 Of Deviprasad Tiwari Kadambari Nagar Durg Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1 )

¶12

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioners : Shri AC Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. No.1 For : Shri Lav Sharma, PL. Respondent/State

¶15

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2024.11.21 10:46:40 +0530

¶16

20/11/2024 :

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

2 / 2

¶20

This Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 1.2.2023 passed by the 9^th Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was dismissed.

¶21

Facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 has raised certain construction and on account of such subsequent development, the amendment application has been filed, which was rejected by the impugned order. Hence this petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the subsequent development has taken place during the pendency of the suit, the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order.

¶24

Considering the submissions, particularly considering the nature of the proposed amendment and the fact that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 has raised certain construction over the suit property: the petitioners have moved the said application claiming possession of the suit property, as also for demolition of the construction raised by defendant No.1 and that only subsequent development has been pleaded and the same was wrongly rejected by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the amendment application deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The trial Court is directed to afford an opportunity to the other side to file consequential amendment, if any.

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶28

Judge

¶29

Barve

Suresh Meshram v. Mukund Bansod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Meshram v. Mukund Bansod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Texcel Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Priyanshu Raut Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Neha Purohit Vs Krishna Dave

Amitap Shrivastav Vs Smt. Laxmi Shrivastav (Ramtake)

Abdul Gaffar Khan Khokhar Vs Mohammed Raza @ Munna Miyan (Since Dead) through Legal Heirs-

R. K. Industries Vs Balkrishna Dani