< ;-L IN THE HIGH COURT_OF_a-lJ-IAmSGARH AT BILASPUR ^ WRIT PETITION NO.S-^Siff2Q04 PETITIONER DEF/RESP N0.1 /• \D;' ^ A^ ^./y^ b/^/- ^yx^ / v •^ €4 /Smt. Lili Kujur, aged about 40 years, widow of Late Arun Kujur, occupatton - Suspended Supervisor, Mahila Bal Vikas, permanent resident of village - Girang, Post Office Gholang, Tah. And Distt. Jashpur (C.G) Presently office address - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Office Bageecha, Post Bageecha, • Distt. Jashpur. VERSUS .^.^J-.^:^.'^^ /ffiAiMTIPF- y^^^"- RESPONDENT DEFN0.2 RESPONDENT DEF N0.3 z- ^' Munkuram Sarthi, s/o Late S.R. Sarthi, aged about 58 years, occupation Service, Cottector Jashpur, resident of village Jatari and Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tah. And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Presently retired) Anil R'ateria, son of Shri Shyamsundar Rateria, aged about 42 years, Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Gaurishankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, (CG) Sudhir Agrawal, s/o. Not Known, Printer & Editor, through : Bhaskar Printing Press - Gumber Complex, In front of High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) A;- •^p®?^ ^ ::-~ RESPONDENT DEFENDANT N0.4 4. u Praan Chaddha, son of Not Known, Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, Bilaspur Edition, in fi-ont of High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) ...^' WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLES 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, .1950 grfi'! (^g ^?^' j ^ "i%^ ^ '^Ir3¥ITWi1TO ysr ^MRTS?,1 ®?itzrTO,t3^TOH< ..W.i..fcA...^O!i9Jl°.i w) ^ 13-1-2005 On a mention being made, |the mafter is taken up for hecring. Gi.T'RJ—FS/35C Smt. Hamida Siddique, coianse! for the petitioner. Shri P. 5. Koshy, counsel frakes notice for respondent No.l, who is the plnintiff before the tria! Coilrt. I have heard learned cour^sel for the parties. Learned counsel for resp^indent No.l does not wont to file rep'y of the writ petition and he wqnts to argue the matter on its merit. Therefore, iearned counsel f^r respondent No.l argued that the petitioner herein, who is the d^fendant No.l before the trial Court, is adopting the deiaying tactics arjd by instant application for amendment 1 of the written statement is qne °f suc^ step, therefore, this writ petition be disposed of and he i^ ready to argue the case. Learned counsel for ^he petitioner submitted thct the amendment sou9ht by the petitioner herein was consequential to the registration of the criminal ^ase based on the complaint of the petitioner and such a plea cc^uld not have been taken before the registration of the criminal cas^ against respondent No.l. The order of the trial Court js perverse, as it has been mentioned in the impugned order that amendment which thje defendant is seeking has aiready been taken in paras-16 and 18 of fte written statement, which is totaily ')2'2S8fltr&Wlto the r-ecord, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be Uli 'S'SF'^IPTR^. 4< ^^ s ^•^ I- Gi.PRJ—FS/350- fm •^?i'liw? {•'pfsp -^- ^73tBm3!I^i allowed and the petitioner m4y be ailowed to amend the written statement. I On the other hand, Mr. Kpshy, while supporting the order of the 1 trial Court, submitted that tHe impugned order in question is not s perverse or contrary to the salttled principles of !aw, therefore, this j . Court should not interfere witji the order passed by the tria! Court under Article 227 of ttie Cons-titution of India. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the ^igh Court is entitled to interfere with the ordep of the Court beiow order having no jurisdiction or (uhere the Court below has passed the Ithe Court below has faiied to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with mater'ial irregul^ri'^y. If the order impugned 13 allowad 1 to exist, then same will be failur^ of the justice. In view of *he above, if case, respondent No.l has filec^ were pubiished in the paper. W we look into the facts of the present the suit against the petitioner herein for defamation and compensatic^n of Rs.5 lacs on the ground that some false aliegations are leveiled a^ainst the petitioner/plaintiff and same 'itten statement has alreacty been filed. During the pendency of the s^iit on the complamt of tne petitioner herein a criminal case bearingNo.113/2004 under Sections 376 and 342 of the I.P.C. has been regi^tered on 6-5-2004. By this amendment )iffli?oner herein wants to raise the plea regarding regisj^ation o.t_ ./^"lu <TO?'iq, ®r!iW1$,f 1< WRg%t 1 "wreB-S'fsiAxN^R criminal case against responc|ent No.l raising the same as c defence to t'ne petitioner's ciaim based |)n the petitioners' p!aint. T'he trial Court 1 has rejected the amendmen|' on the ground that the p!ea which the defendant wants to take by the amendment has already been taken in paras-16 and 18 of the writte|i statement. Perusal of paros 16 an|J 18 of the written statement reveals that no such piea regarding r^gistration of the criinina! case against •respondent No.l herein and jilaintiff in that suit has been raised in the written statemsnt. The ^est for deciding the appiication for amendment of the pleadings ^inder Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. is t'na" 'the Court may at any stag^ of the proceedings aiiow either party' to alter or amend his p!eadings in such manner and on such ts.-ms as may be just, dnd ail such amendm^nts shal! be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining ^he real questions in controversy between ths pdrties.' In the present pase by the instant amendment of wr'itten statement the petitioner h4rein wants to naise the defence against ciairn of the petitioner, *her^fore, the amendment in question goes to the root of the suit. The^efore, order impugned is perverse being based on the ground which is not existing in the written statement, therefore, in my opinion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Gi.PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50.000. 3^'';?fp!TpP.I, •'S^RPTS, '!«sf<yl3%>l.'t Sarve v.-:11 1 A ,is set aside. The tri'dl Courtl mattep iri gccocdance with Idw; for respondenti No.l, 1+ie trigl dcccrdahcewith law. In ^view of this o( Nos.9980/2004. dnd 9981/2004 WifOTtT iroR 4 feA^R?R Inthe:result.thewritp^titionisaliowednndthieimpugnedBrden is diRected to proceed further in thel However, as ar-gued byjearned coynsel Part-ies.are entitled forc^rtified copy of this omJer. -^aT-" L.C^00 .)udge_ - 'ouFtshould try to expedite tiie trialin •der, •M.(W.)P. No.5307/2004, I.A. stancldisposed of. Gi; PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50. 1:6' .!';! ^fl: ^