WritPetition (227) No. \195 of2011 PETITIONER (Plaintiff) RESPONDENTS (Defendant) BILASPUR, " Qamwl- V / : Ramdik Bhai Vaghela @ Bhupat Bhai Vaghela aged about 69 years, S/o Late Babu Bhai Vaghela, R/o M.I.G. — 17 Lalbag, Housing Board Colony, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Through— General Power Of attorney holder Sanjay Vaghela aged about 34 years, R/o M.I.G. 17 Lalbag, Housing Board Colony Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (L V— f/ . “Jyu VERSUS [L l. x . Sujal Yaghela aged about 24 Years S/o / Late Jayanti Vaghela, R/o House No. 92, Labour Colony, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2, /} Gaurav Vaghela aged about 22 Years S/o Late Jayanti Vaghela, R/o House No. 92, Labour Colony, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) g Chhattisgarh Housing Board \ $- G.E. Road, old Hospital Road Rajnandgaon (C.G.) @ ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA‘RH AT BILASPUR g { Writ Petition (227) No. 1283 of2011 PETITIONER Plaintiff : Ramnik Bhai Vaghela @ Bhupat Bhai Vaghela VERSUS ESPONDENTS : Sujal Vaghela & others efendant WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for ,the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08.03.201 1) The instant petition filed under Order 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the order dated 09.10.2010, passed by the District Judge, , - Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. '2l-A/08, whereby the petitioner’ application for amendment filed under Order 6 Ride 17 of CPC has been dismissed. A suit claiming relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction is filed by the petitioner herein inter-aha pleading : petitioner purchased a house in the year 1977 benami in the name of his brother late Jayanti Vaghela and is in its peaceful possession since 28-30 years and had perfected his title over the suit house by way of adverse possession. The defendants, being wife and sons of deceased Jayanti Vaghela, are trying to sale out the suit house. By way of amendment, the petitioner wanted to incorporate plea in the plaint that the defendants are not legal R D s representatives of deceased Jayanti Vaghela and have no right to sale out the suit house. 3. The trial court dismissed the amendment application filed by the petitioner. 4. Shri Thakur, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Surender Kumar Shanna v. Makhan Singhl, would submit: if court finds that by allowing application, real controversy between the parties may be resolved. Court can allow application where opposite party can be compensated by costs or otherwise. Court has wide discretion to deal with the application in such manner and on such terms which appear it to be just and proper and with a view to do full and complete justice between the parties. 5. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and having perused the order impugned, copy of plaint and amendment application, I am of the considered opinion that trial court has not committed any illegality warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The instant suit is filed by the petitioner for declaration of title and injunction based on adverse possession against the defendant admittedly who are legal representatives of deceased Jayanti Vaghela. Now, by way of amendment application, the petitioner wants to withdraw his admission in the pleadings with respect to relationship of defendants with late Jayanti Vaghela without placing any cogent and proper explanation therefor. Therefore, on one hand, petitioner sought declaration to the MM l 2009 (10) scc 626 effect that petitioner is in adverse possession of the suit land against the V \ defendants, and on the other hand, by way of amendment application he wants to challenge the title of the defendants. The case on hand is not a case where the amendment application has been filed belatedly and the issue raised is relief for the purpose ofjust decision of the case. In the instant case, the petitioner wants to raise a plea which is contrary/destructive/amounts to withdrawal of admission without there being any explanation, and therefore, the case referred by the petitioner is of no help to him, and the trial court, in its discretion, has 3 rightly dismissed the amendment application. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge