Chattisgarh High Court
Baliram vs Dinesh on 13 July, 2026
1
CGHC010177372026 2026:CGHC:29505
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 615 of 2026
1 - Baliram S/o Shri Sidar Kanwar Aged About 59 Years R/o Village
-Potebirni, Tah. Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Dinesh S/o Shri Manbodh Aged About 54 Years Occupation-
Agriculture, R/o Village - Bardih Tah. And P. S. Lailunga Distt. Raigarh
(C.G.)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari,PL
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Order on Board
13/07/2026
The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the
2
order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Gharghoda, District Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2019,
whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order VI Rule
17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking
amendment of the written statement has been partly allowed. While the
proposed amendments contained in Clauses 2(a) and 2(b) of the
application dated 03.12.2025 have been permitted, the remaining
proposed amendments have been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
defendant No.1 in the aforesaid civil suit instituted by the
respondent/plaintiff seeking declaration of title, confirmation of
possession and a declaration that the order dated 06.09.2018 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lailunga, is not binding upon
him. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written
statement, particularly with respect to paragraphs 2, 9 and 10. The
learned trial Court, however, permitted only the amendments proposed
in Clauses 2(a) and 2(b) and declined the amendments contained in
Clauses 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e).
3. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has proceeded
on an erroneous premise that the proposed amendments would alter
the nature and character of the suit. The said finding, according to the
petitioner, is wholly unsustainable since the amendments have been
sought only in the written statement and not in the plaint. The proposed
amendments neither change the nature of the suit nor introduce a new
3
defence but merely elaborate and clarify the existing pleadings already
taken by the petitioner. It is argued that a defendant is entitled to raise
all permissible pleas in support of his defence, and the law relating to
amendment of a written statement is considerably more liberal than that
governing amendment of a plaint.
4. It is also contended that the proposed amendments are
necessitated on the basis of certain revenue records, which could not
be incorporated earlier owing to the non-availability of relevant
documents and certain typographical errors. The amendments are,
therefore, explanatory and clarificatory in nature and are essential for
an effective and complete adjudication of the real controversy between
the parties. Since the plaintiff’s evidence has not yet commenced, no
prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the respondent if the
amendments are permitted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned
order be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to amend the written
statement in terms of the application dated 03.12.2025.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
6. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration of
title, confirmation of possession and a declaration that the order dated
06.09.2018 passed by the SDO (Revenue), Lailunga, is not binding
upon him. It is not disputed that the petitioner sought amendment of the
written statement in paragraphs 2, 9 and 10. The learned trial Court
allowed the amendments proposed in Clauses 2(a) and 2(b) of the
4
application dated 03.12.2025, treating the same as clarificatory in
nature, but declined the remaining amendments. The impugned order
reveals that the learned trial Court found the amendments proposed in
Clauses 2(a) and 2(b) to be necessary for the effective adjudication of
the dispute between the parties. However, the remaining amendments
were rejected on the ground that they sought to introduce facts which,
according to the trial Court, were already within the knowledge of
defendant No.1 and permitting such amendments at this stage,
particularly when the suit has remained pending since 2019 and the
plaintiff’s evidence had commenced, would unnecessarily delay the
trial.
7. A perusal of paragraph 2 of the written statement discloses that
the petitioner had already pleaded that the suit land bearing Khasra No.
96/14, admeasuring 0.154 hectare, had been allotted to the plaintiff
under Bhumiswami rights by order dated 06.08.1975 passed by the
Naib Tahsildar, Gharghoda in Case No. 347/A-19/1974-75. By way of
the proposed amendment, the petitioner merely seeks to incorporate
the subsequent correction order dated 08.01.1977, whereby the Khasra
numbers were corrected in the revenue records, and to plead that
under the subsequent settlement proceedings, the Naib Tahsildar,
Gharghoda granted settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner in
the year 1981.
8. Similarly, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the written statement, the
petitioner seeks to incorporate the particulars of Case No.
109/B-19/1980-81 and the order dated 02.07.1981, under which
5
settlement patta was allegedly granted in his favour. In the considered
opinion of this Court, these pleadings merely constitute the
consequential chain of revenue entries and subsequent allotment
relating to the source of title claimed by the petitioner. They neither
introduce a new or inconsistent defence nor alter the fundamental
nature of the written statement. Rather, they furnish additional
particulars in support of the defence already pleaded. In the case of
Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh reported in 2006 (6) SCC 498, it
has been held by the Apex Court in para 15 & 16 as under:
“15. Let us now take up the last ground on which
the application for amendment of the written
statement was rejected by the High Court as well
as the Trial Court. The rejection was made on the
ground that inconsistent plea cannot be allowed
to be taken. We are unable to appreciate the
ground of rejection made by the High Court as
well as the Trial Court. After going through the
pleadings and also the statements made in the
application for amendment of the written
statement, we fail to understand how inconsistent
plea could be said to have been taken by the
appellants in their application for amendment of
the written statement, excepting the plea taken by
the appellants in the application for amendment of
written statement regarding the joint ownership of
the suit property. Accordingly, on facts, we are not
satisfied that the application for amendment of the
written statement could be rejected also on this
ground. That apart, it is now well settled that an
amendment of a plaint and amendment of a
written statement are not necessarily governed by
exactly the same principle. It is true that some
general principles are certainly common to both,
but the rules that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to
amend his pleadings so as to alter materially or
substitute his cause of action or the nature of his
claim has necessarily no counterpart in the law
relating to amendment of the written statement.
6
Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or
altering a defence does not raise the same
problem as adding, altering or substituting a new
cause of action. Accordingly, in the case of
amendment of written statement, the courts are
inclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment
of the written statement than of plaint and
question of prejudice is less likely to operate with
same rigour in the former than in the latter case.
16. This being the position, we are therefore of
the view that inconsistent pleas can be raised by
defendants in the written statement although the
same may not be permissible in the case of
plaint. In the case of M/s. Modi Spinning and
Weaving Mills Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ladha Ram
& Co.[(1976) 4 SCC 320], this principle has been
enunciated by this Court in which it has been
clearly laid down that inconsistent or alternative
pleas can be made in the written statement.
Accordingly, the High Court and the Trial Court
had gone wrong in holding that
defendants/appellants are not allowed to take
inconsistent pleas in their defence.”
9. In the above cited case, the Supreme Court has emphasized that
the principles governing amendment of a written statement are
materially different from those applicable to amendment of a plaint.
While a plaintiff is generally not permitted to alter the cause of action or
fundamentally change the nature of the suit through amendment, a
defendant enjoys greater latitude in amending the written statement. A
defendant may raise alternative, additional, or even inconsistent pleas,
provided the amendment does not amount to withdrawal of a clear
admission causing irretrievable prejudice to the opposite party.
Consequently, courts should adopt a liberal approach while considering
applications for amendment of a written statement so that the real
controversy between the parties can be effectively adjudicated.
7
10. The law relating to amendment of a written statement is more
liberal than that relating to amendment of a plaint. A defendant is
entitled to raise alternative or inconsistent pleas by way of amendment,
and such amendment should ordinarily be permitted unless it seeks to
withdraw a clear admission or causes serious prejudice to the opposite
party.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the proposed amendments are germane
to the controversy involved in the suit and are necessary for the
effective adjudication of the rights of the parties. Since the amendments
pertain only to the written statement, no irretrievable prejudice is likely
to be caused to the plaintiff.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 25.03.2026 is set aside to the
extent it rejects the proposed amendments contained in Clauses 2(c),
2(d) and 2(e) of the application dated 03.12.2025. The petitioner is
permitted to carry out the proposed amendments in the written
statement. The learned trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the suit
in accordance with law and dispose of the same expeditiously.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2026.07.28
17:21:36 +0530
