1 W.P. No. 7200/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA WRIT PETITION NO. 7200/2010 ......... Petitioner Ramesh Kumar Plaintiff aged about 50 years, S/o Dadole Prasad Brahmin Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Purwa (Delhi) Tahsil Sirmour, District Rewa (M.P.) Versus ........ Respondents 1. Virendra Kumar Pandey Defendants aged about 30 years, S/o Valikaran Prasad Pandey, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Gram Purwa, Tahsil Sirmour, District Rewa (M.P.) 2. Rajkumar Pandey, aged about 38 years, S/o Ramprapann Pandey, Occupation Agriculture, 3. Ramsurat, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad Brahmin, Occupation Agriculture, 4. Laxmi Prasad aged about 50 years, S/o Ramavatar Brahmin, Occupation Agriculture, 2 W.P. No. 7200/2010 5. Chhohgi, aged about 75 years, S/o Late Ramavatar Brahmin Occupation Housewife, 6. Laxman Prasad aged about 45 years, S/o Late Ramavatar Brahmin Occupation Agriculture, 7. Premlal Pandey aged about 40 years, S/o Late Ramavatar Brahmin, Occupation Agriculture, All above R/o Gram Purwa, Tahsil Sirmour, District Rewa (M.P.) 8. Upendra Mishra aged about 35 years, S/o Shyamsharan Mishra, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Gram Kharhari, Tahsil Sirmour, District Rewa (M.P.) 9. Kalawati, aged about 46 years, W/o Nageshwar Prasad, R/o Gram Deehi, Tahsil Sirmour, District Rewa (M.P.) 10. Dadole Prasad, aged about 65 years, S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Gram Purwa, Tahsil Sirmour, District Rewa (M.P.) 3 W.P. No. 7200/2010 11. Rajkumar Shukla, aged about 26 years, S/o Satyanarayan Shukla, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Gram Purwa, Tahsil Sirmour, District Rewa (M.P.) 12. State of M.P. Through Collector, Rewa, District Rewa (M.P.) ................................................................................................ Petitioner - Shri Vinod Mshra, Advocate. Respondents No. 2, 4 & 6 - Smt. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate. Respondent No.12/State - Shri Sudesh Verma, Government Advocate. ................................................................................................ O R D E R (09/03/2011) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.03.2010 (Annexure P/5) passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been rejected, this petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of certain property the details of which are mentioned in the plaint has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. The evidence 4 W.P. No. 7200/2010 of the petitioner is yet to commence and at this stage, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application to amend the plaint. This application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. Hence, this petition has been filed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On bare perusal of the amendment application as well as the averments made in para 4 of the plaint it is gathered that certain incorrect survey numbers and area have been mentioned and for correcting those survey number and area, the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. According to me, by the proposed amendment, the nature of the suit will not change and the defendants will not be prejudiced in any manner. The evidence of parties is yet to commence. It is well settled in law that if nature of the suit is not changed or if defendants are not prejudiced, then amendment application can be allowed. In this context, I may profitably place reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in 2008(8) SCC 511 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das. In this view of the matter, according to me, the learned Trial Court committed an 5 W.P. No. 7200/2010 illegality in rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 5. Resultantly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure P/5) is set aside and the amendment application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is hereby allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- which shall be deposited in the CCD Account of the Court below on or before 30.04.2011. Needless to say, the learned Trial Court shall reconsider the application of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. after the amendment is carried out. 6. This petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE rao 6 W.P. No. 7200/2010 W.P. No. 7200/10 09.03.2011 Shri Vinod Mshra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for respondents No. 2, 4 & 6. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Goernment Advocate for the respondent no12 /State. Although today the matter has been listed for admission however, with the consent of the parties, petition is heard finally. Order dictated. Signed and dated separately. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao