Rammurti vs Savitri Bai
2025 Latest Caselaw 3344 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Rammurti vs Savitri Bai on 30 June, 2025

                                             1




                                                                          NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                 WP227 No. 260 of 2025
         1 - Rammurti S/o Late Shri Krishna Sunder Agrawal Aged About 79
         Years R/o Village- Jarve, Tehsil- Palari, District- Baloda Bazaar (C.G.)
         (As Per Impugned Order) (Plaintiff)              ... Petitioner(s)
       Digitally
REKHA signed by
SINGH REKHA
       SINGH
                                          versus

         1 - Savitri Bai W/o Late Shri Rasik Bihari Agarwal Aged About 80 Years
         R/o- House No. 102, Om Society, Near Patwari Prasikshan Kendra,
         Sunder Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) C/o- Firm Rasik Bihari Santosh
         Kumar Grain Merchant Purani Ganj Pandi, Ramsagar Para District-
         Raipur (C.G.) Presently Residing At House No. E11, Sector -1 Agroha
         Colony, Agrasen Nagar, Raipura, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Defendants)

         2 - Anil Kumar S/o Shri Kunj Bihari Agarwal Aged About 52 Years R/o -
         Kishnayan Bhatapara Road, District- Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara (C.G.)
         Firm Goyal Saw Mill, Purani Basti Lutwa Road District- Baloda Bazaar
         (C.G.) (As Per Impugned Order)

         3 - Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Kunj Bihari Agarwal Aged About 46 Years R/o-
         Thakur Dev Chowk, District- Baloda Bazaar (C.G.) (As Per Impugned
         Order)

         4 - Sheela @ Mamta W/o Shri Mangalmurti Agarwal Aged About 50
         Years R/o - Agarwak Para, Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.)

         5 - Gopal Murti S/o Late Shri Krishna Sunder Agarwal Aged About 65
         Years All R/o- Village Jarwe, Tehsil- Palari, District- Baloda Bazaar
         (C.G.) (As Per Impugned Order) Presently Residing At Professor
         Colony, Sector - 03, Road No. - 05, Near Ujjwal Public School District-
         Raipur (C.G.)

         6 - Anup S/o Late Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal Aged About 45 Years R/o-
         Vishnu Sadan Purani Basti Baniya Para District- Raipur (C.G.) Firm
         Goyal Electrics, Near City Kotwali, District - Raipur (C.G.)

         7 - Vimla W/o Shri Ram Bihari Agarwal Aged About 60 Years R/o - Near
         Kusharpur Punjab National Atm, District- Raipur (C.G.)

         8 - Sheetla Bai W/o Shri Sushil Bihari Agarwal Aged About 58 Years R/o
                                     2

- Purani Basti, In Front Of Agrasen Mahavidyalaya, Beside Agarwal
Bhawan, District- Raipur (C.G.)

9 - Shrimurti D/o Late Shri Krishna Sundar Agarwal Aged About 55
Years R/o- Housing Board Colony, Near Shiv Mandir, Sector - 04,
House No. 608 Saddu, District- Raipur (C.G.)

10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District- Baloda Bazaar
(C.G.) (As Per Impugned Order)                  ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner /Plaintiff : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate with Mr. Shayon Kar, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer For Respondents : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

30/06/2025

1) The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition against the order

dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I,

Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.), in Civil Suit

No.83-A/2017, whereby an application moved by the petitioner

under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC was rejected.

2) Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff

would submit that the plaintiff instituted a suit for partition,

possession and perpetual injunction against respondent No.1. He

would further submit that the defendants filed a written statement

and denied the plaint averments. It is further contended that the

learned Trial Court framed seven issues on 09.12.2019.

Thereafter, the case was set for the plaintiff's evidence and the

affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC was filed by the

petitioner on 27.09.2021. He would also contend that the

plaintiff/petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of

the CPC on 14.06.2022 on the ground that there was a partition of

the suit land between the parties and this fact has not been

pleaded in the plaint. The application was allowed by the learned

Trial Court vide order dated 21.07.2023. He would further argue

that the defendants moved an application for consequential

amendment and it was allowed by the learned Trial Court. He

would also argue that the defendants denied the averments made

by the plaintiff with regard to the partition in their written

statement. He would state that the petitioner moved an application

under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC for framing an additional issue

with regard to the factum of partition and the right of defendants

over seven survey numbers admeasuring 0.54 hectares. He

would further state that the application was replied to by the

defendants and the learned Trial Court rejected it. He would pray

to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial and to allow the

application.

3) On the other hand, Mr. Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing for

respondents No.1, 6 & 9 would oppose the submissions made by

learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the

petitioner has not placed any document to demonstrate that any

application for consequential amendment was moved by the

defendant and the averments made by the petitioner with regard

to partition were denied. He would contend that the learned Trial

Court after due appreciation, rejected the application moved by

the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC. He would also

contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

4) Mr. Bareth, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would

support the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents placed on the record.

6) Mr. Tiwari has categorically stated that the application moved by

the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment was allowed by the learned

Trial Court and the application for consequential amendment

moved by the defendants was also allowed. The statement made

by Mr. Tiwari, with regard to the consequential amendment is

taken on record.

7) Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC reads as under:-

"Order 14 Rule 5. Power to amend and strike out issues.-(1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed.

(2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced."

8) If there is an affirmation of any fact in the pleadings by the plaintiff

in the plaint and the same has been denied by the defendants,

there would be an issue.

9) In the present case, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application

under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC wherein the factum of partition

between the parties was pleaded and it was allowed by the

learned Trial Court.

10) The defendants moved an application for consequential

amendment, wherein, they denied the facts pleaded by the

petitioner in its plaint. Thus, the condition mentioned in Order 14

Rule 1 of CPC is fulfilled therefore the learned trial Court ought to

have allowed the application moved by the petitioner under Order

14 Rule 5 of the CPC. Accordingly, the order passed by the

learned Trial Court whereby the application moved by the

petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC was rejected, is

hereby set aside and the application moved by the petitioner is

allowed. As the suit was filed in the year 2017, the learned Trial

Court is directed to expedite the trial.

11) In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

JUDGE Rekha