Ram Krishn Chaudhari Vs Balkrishn

The petitioner/ plaintiff has preferred this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.07.2025, whereby his application which is marked as I. A. No.5 for amendment in the plaint was rejected. The petitioner/ plaintiff further assails the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 10.11.2025, by which his subsequent application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Sarangarh (CG) as a party, was also rejected.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit seeking a decree of declaration against respondents No.1 & 2. According to the pleadings in the plaint, respondent No.1 obtained a credit facility from respondent No.2 by allegedly producing forged and fabricated documents. It is further pleading by the petitioner/

¶17

2

¶18

plaintiff that respondents No. 1 & 2 with connivance behind the back of the petitioner, mortgaged the properties held by the petitioner under the valid title and rights and it is alleged that the loan was obtained by forging the said documents. He further submits that when the suit was filed, respondent No.2/ Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sarangarh was arrayed as defendant No.2. When it came to know that the loan was actually advanced by the ADB Branch of respondent No.2, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed. That application was rejected by the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 holding that it would change the nature of the suit. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Sarangarh (CG). The said application was also rejected by the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 holding that as the earlier application was already rejected hence, this application cannot be allowed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per pleadings of the plaint, the allegation is leveled against respondents No.1 & 2 that with connivance to each other, respondent No.1 has obtained the loan from respondent No.2 by putting forged documents of properties of the petitioner, thus a declaration was sought that the loan which was obtained by putting up the forged document of property. Later on, when the petitioner came to know the loan was advanced by ADB Branch of respondent No.2, the application for amendment was filed which was illegally rejected by the impugned order. He submits that the finding recorded by learned Civil Judge that it would change the nature of suit is absolutely misconceived. Though he further submits that subsequent application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was rejected holding that the earlier application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was already rejected. He submits that in order to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and respondents, the amendment is necessary, thus the application ought to have been allowed.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondents opposing the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner submits that by making an amendment the petitioner is arraying the proposed respondent as party and perhaps the suit may be barred by limitation. It is

¶21

3

¶22

further contended that since the first application was rejected, the subsequent application could not have been entertained by the Civil Judge and that the impugned orders do not suffer from any material irregularity.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

From perusal of record, it appears that the main crux of the pleading is that respondent No.1 has placed the properties which are described in the plaint which fell in the share of the petitioner before respondent No.2 for obtaining the certain credit facility. It has also been specifically pleaded that respondents No. 1 & 2 with connivance to each other behind the back, the property which was in the share and title of the petitioner, put in the security before respondent No.2 by forging it. Thus, the relief was sought. From the application under Order 6 Rule 17, it appears that when the petitioner/ plaintiff came to know that the loan was obtained from the proposed ADB Branch of respondent No.1, the application was filed. The learned Civil Judge while rejecting the application held that it would change the nature of suit. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Civil Judge has rejected the said application exercising his power with material irregularity. State Bank of India, Sarangarh was already arrayed as defendant and only the ADB Branch was proposed to be arrayed as defendant. Thus, it would not change the nature of suit, thus the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 is set aside, as the first impugned order is set aside, there is no necessity for this Court to set aside the subsequent impugned order. As the relief in the subsequent application has already been granted by this Court while deciding this writ petition. The said amendment would be carried out by the petitioner on the date fixed by learned Civil Judge. The respondents are at liberty to file a consequential amendment, if so required.

¶25

Thus, this writ petition is allowed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2026.02.16 17:19:57 +0530

¶28

(Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE

¶29

Parul

Ram Krishn Chaudhari v. Balkrishn

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Krishn Chaudhari v. Balkrishn

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharti Kesharwani Vs Ramchandra Kesharwani

Monika Sharma Vs Umashankar Sharma

Laxmina Devi Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

Uddhav Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ishwari Lal Soni Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sano Devi Vs Kaushlendra Gupta