^ ^l .sy^. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ?^-f1 W.P.^- N0. ^\^?-> /2009 PETITIONER CDefendant No.l.) RESPONDENTS .^^•" ^'I^ 0^^il Ramavtar Sharma, Son of late Shri Mangilal Shar, aged about 68 years, At-Azad Nagar, Bilha, Tahsil- Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus Raj Kumar Gangwani, Son of late Shri Kishanchand Gangwani, aged about 40 years, At-Bilha, Ektanagar, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). ...... ......Plaintiff Nagar Panchayat, Bilha, Through-Chief Muhicipal Officer,Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ^ ,^* ^ .X)°u 2. ^1\{Q HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR SinaEe Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar IVjjshra Wrif Petition (227} No.45€8of 2009 ^-^ Ramavtar Sharma versus Raj Kumar Gangwani and another ORDER Postfor^-01-2010 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge '%> ^ HJGHCOURTOFCHHATTiSGARHATBiLASPUR Slnale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition (2271 No.4568 of 2009 Ramavtar Sharma versus Raj Kumar Gangwani and another Ft' Present: Shri Ratan Pusty, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Suni! Otwanj, counsel for respondent No.1. None appears for respondent No.2. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORDER (Passed on ^.^January, 2010) The petitioner hereln was defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.86- A/2008 pending before the Civil Judge CIass-il, Bilha, District Bilaspur. He seeks to challenge the order passed by the trial Court on 10-8-2009 (Annexure P-9) rejecting his prayer for amendment in the written statement. 2. The pSalntiff/respondent No.1 had preferred a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction In April, 2008. It Is stated at the Bar and not disputed by defendant No.l/petitioner that the written statement filed by hlm on 17-6-2008 and that the issues were on 1-7-2009. 3. After framing ofthe issues, defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 6 Ruie 17 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth 'the Code') on 10-7-2009 (Annexure P-4) proposing amendment in rn" n 1 '%,.^ 2L— paragraphs 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16 and for substituting the earlier paragraph 24 with a new paragraph 24. 4. The learned tria! Court has rejected the prayer for amendment by observing that al! the facts proposed to be pieaded by way of amendmentwere In the knowledge of defendant No.1 at the time of filing of written statement on 17-6-2008 and no expianation has been offered as to why these facts were not pieaded eariier. Applyjng the provision contained in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 ofthe Code. the tearned tria! Court has further observed that defendant No.1 has faiied to demonstrate that jn spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before commencement ofthe trial, i.e., the date of framing ofthe issues. 5. In Vidyabai and vs. Padma!atha and anofter, 2009 A!R the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the date on which Issues are framed in the suit Is the first date of hearing. 6. From the proposed amendment, it appears that jt is an extensive amendment almost twice the contents of the eariier written statement and though as ciarificatory, it introduces certain new facts which were not mentioned in the earlier written statement, therefore. the appllcatjon for amendment not appear to be mere elaboration of the eariier written statement. 7. in the present case, the application for amendment has moved framing of issues. Moreover, the proposed amendment is not clarificatory but is so eiaborate that it practically Introduces a new written statement. in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not ...^' /' -3— 11^ committed any error of law or jurisdiction warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of !ndia. 8. The writ petltion faiis and is hereby dismlssed. There shall be no order as to costs. _-_— Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge KlNII"ll«Nt>