Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Prem Pandey vs Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya ( Died) ... on 12 June, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
2025:CGHC:23328
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 472 of 2025
Smt. Prem Pandey D/o Late Ramgopal Pandey Aged About 65 Years R/o
Main Road, Darri, Wardno. 53, Tah. And District - Korba (C.G.) Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Husband Ramesh Chandra Pandey, S/o Late
Shri Tekram Pandey , Aged About 70 Years R/o Puirani Basti, Darri Tah.
And District - Korba (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1.Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya ( Died) Through Legal Lrs Nil
1.1 - Ramrati Singhaniya W/o Late Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya Aged
About 68 Years R/o Netaji Chowk Link Road Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District -
Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)
1.2 - Rajkumar Singhaniya S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya Aged
About 43 Years R/o Netaji Chowk Link Road Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District -
Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)
1.3 - Shyam Singhaniya S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya Aged About
40 Years R/o Netaji Chowk Link Road Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir
- Champa (C.G.)
1.4 - Uma Agrawal W/o Shri Anil Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o Barpali
Tha. Barpali District - Bargarh (Orissa)
Digitally
signed by
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.01
10:44:10
+0530
2
1.5 - Seema Agrawal W/o Shri Ravi Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o H.
No. 216/c Krishna Vihar Colony Raigarh Tah. And District - Raigarh (C.G.)
1.6 - Mamta Kediya W/o Abhishek Kediya R/o Akaltara Tah. Akaltara
District -Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)
2.Pawan Kumar S/o Rameshwer Singhaniya Aged About 32 Years R/o
Netaji Chowk Janjgir, Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)
3.Rameshwer Singhaniya S/o Johrimal Aged About 67 Years R/o Netaji
Chowk Janjgir, Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)
4.Ramgopal Tiwari (Died) Through Lrs) Nil
4.1 - Ram Vilas Tiwari S/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari Aged About 51 Years R/o
Hriyali Heritage Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)
4.2 - Ram Gulam Tiwari S/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari Aged About 46 Years
R/o Collectorate Road Janjgir Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa
(C.G.)
4.3 - Smt. Premlata D/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari W/o Laxmi Narayan
Sharma Aged About 65 Years R/o Mahu Tah. Pamgarh District - Janjgir -
Champa (C.G.)
4.4 - Smt. Shashi Kiran Chobey D/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari W/o L.K.
Chobey Aged About 61 Years R/o Shree Vihar Sarkanda Bilaspur Tah.
And District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
4.5 - Smt. Snehlata Mishra D/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari W/o Baldu Mishra
Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 8 Shankar Nagar Janjgir Tah. Janjgir
District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)
4.6 - Smt. Pushplata Chobey D/o Late Ramgopal Tiwari W/o Deepak
Chobey Aged About 53 Years R/o Avikal Kunj Street No. 6/c Zone - 2
Adarsh Nagar Behicn Dominoz Pizza Durg Tah. And District -Durg (C.G.)
5.Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramgopal Tiwari Aged About 64 Years R/o
Tiwari Auto Parts Netaji Chowk Janjgir, Tah. Janjgir District - Janjgir -
Champa (C.G.)
3
6.State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Janjgir District - Janjgir -
Champa (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
12/06/2025
1. The plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India assailing the order dated 02.05.2025, passed by learned District and
Additional Session Judge, Janjgir Champa by which application for
amendment moved by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of The CPC has
been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that initially Civil Suit No.60-A/2007 between
Ramgopal and others vs. Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya and others was filed
before the Trial Court for possession of suit property bearing Khasra
No.3807/23, Area 0.05 Acre and Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya has also filed
a Civil Suit No. 164-A/2005 for possession of land bearing Khasra
No.3807/8, area 0.04 Acre, which were dismissed vide common judgment
and decree dated 21.09.2007.
3. Being aggrieved with the dismissal of the suit both the plaintiffs have filed
Civil appeals bearing FA Nos.122/2007 and 141/2007 before this Court.
The appeals were allowed by this Court and the matter was remitted back
to the Trial Court for deciding the issue No.2 afresh. Thereafter the
learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree dated
17.09.2021, by which the Civil Suit No.164-A/2005 (Jagdish Prasad vs.
Ramgopal) was allowed and Civil Suit No. 60-A/2007 filed by Ramgopal
was dismissed, against which appeals have been filed.
4. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and decree dated
13.06.2024 allowed First Appeal No. 99/2021 filed by Ramgopal and
another against Jagdishprasad and remitted back the matter with a
specific direction as mentioned in paragraph-15 of its judgment directing
the trial Court to appoint Additional Collector who shall constitute a team
of Revenue Officer with certain and specific direction for spot inspection
and demarcation of the land in dispute in presence of both the parties.
After receiving the report from the Additional Collector and hearing both
the parties fresh judgment will be passed.
5. Thereafter proceedings were initiated before the trial Court. Plaintiff Smt.
Prema Pandey moved an application on 24.04.2025 for amendment in the
pleading and sought amendment in her pleadings and also to claim
additional relief of removing the illegal possession and claiming vacant
possession over the suit land bearing Khasra No. 3807/23 land
admeasuring 0.03/3/4 acre which has been illegality taken possession by
the defendants and construction has been done. The said application
was rejected by the trial Court while recording its finding that this Court
while remanding the matter has given direction for appointment of
Commissioner thereafter both the parties were directed to appear before
the Court and after receiving the report from the Additional Collector and
hearing both the parties, fresh judgment has to be passed. Learned trial
Court has also recorded its finding that since this Court has given specific
direction no further proceeding can be taken by the trial court and has
rejected the same.
6. Being aggrieved with the order, the petitioner has preferred instant petition
under Article 227 of the constitution of India mainly contending that the
impugned order was passed by the trial court suffers from perversity and
illegality wherein the trial court wrongly rejected the application for
amendment in plaint ignoring the amendment would not change the
nature of suit and the same is necessary for just and proper adjudication
of the suit and would pray for allowing the petition and quashing of the
impugned order.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that this Court in FA No. 99 of 2021 has given specific
direction as stated above for appointment of Commissioner consisting of
Revenue Officers, thereafter they will submit their report and no further
direction to proceed other than direction given by this Court. Learned trial
court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application. Even
otherwise, if there is an order of remand made by this Court the judicial
propriety requires that the trial Court should not travel beyond the order of
terms of the remand. In view of this well settled legal position, I am of the
view that the trial court has not committed illegality in rejecting the same
which does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
santosh
