Allowed¶37

Brij Mohan Katare v. Laxmi Bai Katare

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2026WP227/729/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) CPC; late-stage amendment after closure of plaintiffs' evidence; documents taken on record at defendants' instance; objection of interpolation and fabrication; trial court rejection set aside; writ petition allowed; Civil Suit No. 13-A/2017; Civil Judge Class-I Bhatapara; Balodabazar-Bhatapara; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Justice Sachin Singh Rajput; 2026 CGHC 6368.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 31.07.2023 set aside; application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC allowed; petitioners/plaintiffs permitted to amend the plaint as per the application filed, on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. ¶37

Brij Mohan Katare Vs Laxmi Bai Katare — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 31.07.2023 of the learned Civil Judge rejecting the petitioners'/plaintiffs' application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint was sustainable, or liable to be set aside.

¶24

Court's answer

The genesis of the amendment application lay solely in the trial court's order allowing defendant No. 6 to place documents on record; the cause to file the amendment application arose only after that order.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

In their reply to defendant No. 6's document application the plaintiffs had specifically objected that the documents were interpolated and fabricated, and the learned Civil Judge, while allowing that application, rejected the submission to be considered at a later stage i.e. during the course of defendants' witnesses.

¶35

Key takeaways

If defendant No. 6's documents are duly proved and read in evidence, they may hamper the petitioners'/plaintiffs' case when there is no pleading in the plaint to countenance the documents on record; this aspect was overlooked by the learned Civil Judge.ratio¶35
In the interest of justice, the learned Civil Judge ought to have allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Justice Sachin Singh Rajput), WP227 No. 729 of 2023, decided 04/02/2026: Writ petition by two brothers (plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 13-A/2017, a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction over Khasra No. 526/13, renumbered Khasra No. 70/2, area 1872 sq.ft., village Patpar, Tahsil Bhatapara) challenging the Civil Judge Class-I, Bhatapara's order dated 31.07.2023 rejecting their application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint. The amendment (new paragraphs 8(A)-8(C)) was sought only after the trial court, vide order dated 27.06.2023, allowed defendant No. 6 to take on record documents under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) CPC (registered sale-deeds dated 06.03.1973 and 18.04.1973, revenue records, patwari map, Tahsildar's order dated 24.10.2000, Rin Pustika, tax receipts), which the plaintiffs had alleged in their reply were interpolated and fabricated. Held: the cause for amendment arose only from that order; if the documents, once proved, were read in evidence without any pleading in the plaint to countenance them, the plaintiffs' case could be hampered - an aspect the trial court overlooked - so the Civil Judge ought to have allowed the amendment in the interest of justice. Writ petition allowed; amendment permitted on a date to be fixed by the trial court.

2026:CGHC:6368

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 729 of 2023

¶6

1 - Brij Mohan Katare S/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 31 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Purshottam Katare S/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 24 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Laxmi Bai Katare D/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 45 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Saroj Katare D/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 42 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Ramla Katare D/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 38 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Chitralekha D/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 33 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Kejal Bai D/o- Late Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 65 Years R/o- Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶15

¶16

6 - Madan Singh S/o- Ghanaram Teli Aged About 55 Years R/o- Near Saint Mary School, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶17

7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, DistrictBalodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Defendants)

¶18

--- Respondents

¶19

{Cause title, as taken from Case Information System}

¶20

For Petitioners	: Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate.
For Respondent No.	6 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Soni, Advocate.
For Respondent No.	7 : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, DeputyGovt. Advocate.

¶21

{Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

04/02/2026

¶24

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Class -I, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13-A/2017, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC filed by petitioners / plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint has been rejected.

¶25

2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners/plaintiffs, are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have instituted civil suit for declaration of title, possession and for permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 526/13, renumbered as Khasra No. 70/2, area 1872 sq.ft. situated at village Patpar, Patwari Halka No. 7/10, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). Written statement on behalf of the respondent No. 6-defendant No. 6 has also been filed. Evidence of the plaintiffs was also recorded and the case was fixed for recording defendants' evidence. At that time, respondent /defendant No. 6 filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of CPC (Annexure P-4), for taking documents on record, and intended to file documents, which includes a registered sale-deed dated 06.03.1973 & 18.04.1973, revenue records in the name of Ghanaram B-1

¶26

¶27

year 1999-2000, Khasra of the year 2000-2001, B-1 1999-2000 in the name of Madan Singh, patwari map of the suit land and certified copy of the order dated 24.10.2000 passed by Tahsildar, B-1 and Khasra Panchshala of the Year 2022-23 and original Rin Pustika of respondent No. 6 / defendant No. 6 and original receipt of taxes paid.

¶28

Learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhatapara (C.G.), vide order dated 27.06.2023, allowed the aforesaid application and the documents filed alongwith this application are taken on record.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the documents, which have been filed by the Respondent No. 6/defendant No. 6, were affecting the right of the petitioners / plaintiffs, therefore, in order to clarify the position, consequential amendment are required to be made in the plaint, thus, an application for amendment in plaint was filed, in which, three paragraphs, after paragraph 8 of the plaint i.e. 8(A), 8(B) & 8(C) were intended to be incorporated. He submits that the documents, which have been produced by respondent No. 6 / defendant No. 6 and accepted by learned Civil Judge, appears to have been interpolated and fabricated one, thus, to counter the veracity of that documents, the amendments which were proposed in the application were necessary in the plaint, despite that, learned Civil Judge vide its impugned order dated 31.07.2023 rejected the said application. The reasons assigned by the Civil Judge for rejecting the said application that suit is listed at the stage of defendants' evidence and the aforesaid application was filed after closing the plaintiffs' evidence. He submits that the suit is pending since 2017 and it is stated that if the application for amendment in the plaint is allowed, then the defendants would also make an application for consequential amendment. It is submitted that cause of action to file application for amendment arose only after certain documents were placed on record by defendant No. 6 by filing application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of CPC and accepted by learned Civil Judge. He submits that if the plaintiffs does not counter the documents in the plaint and if it is allowed to be admitted in the evidence, then

¶30

¶31

it could definitely prejudice and hamper the suit filed by the plaintiff, thus, rejection of the application is bad in law and the reasons assigned does hold water and liable to be set aside.

¶32

Learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 7 submits that the suit is between private respondents.

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 /defendant No. 6 submits that the plaintiffs filed application for amendment in the plaint after closing the plaintiffs' evidence and it has been filed only to delay the trial and the finding recorded by the trial Court is just & proper, which does not call for any interference.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

From the perusal of record, it appears that genesis of filing an application for amendment arose only after application filed by respondent No. 6/defendant No. 6 for placing documents on record was allowed by learned Civil Judge. The documents are to be proved by respondent No. 6 / defendant No. 6 and admissibility of the documents has to be judged by learned Civil Judge. In the reply filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to the application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(E) of the CPC filed by defendant No. 6, a specific objection was raised that there is interpolation and fabrication in the documents so filed and learned Civil Judge while allowing the application rejected the submission to be considered at the later stage i.e during the course of defendants' witnesses. As such, there is no necessity to incorporate the proposed amendment to be incorporated in the plaint. If the documents, which have been submitted by defendant No. 6 is duly proved and read in evidence, it may hamper the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs, without there being any pleading to countenance the documents on record. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by learned Civil Jude. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, in the interest of justice, learned Civil Judge ought to have allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the PC for amendment in the plaint filed by petitioners/plaintiffs.

¶36

¶37

In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 31.07.2023 is allowed. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC is allowed and the petitioners/plaintiffs are permitted to amend the plaint, as per application so filed, on a date to be fixed by the trial Court.

¶38

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶39

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶40

ami

¶41

AMITA DUBEY

¶42

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.10 18:52:16 +0530

Brij Mohan Katare v. Laxmi Bai Katare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Mohan Katare v. Laxmi Bai Katare

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

Prafull Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Au Small Finance Bank Ltd. Vs Rammilan Nirala

Laxman Prasad Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajnish Dubey Vs Dainik Bhaskar News Paper

Smt. Rakhi Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Sandeep Kumar Sonkar Vs Ramgopal