PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFF :SINGLE BENCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAERH AT BILASPUR Prabhudayal, S/o Late Bandhan Gond, aged about 5O years, Parbal Dayal, S/o Late Bandhan Gond, aged about 47 years, > Ram Prasad S/o Late Bandhan Gond, aged about 45 years, Shivnandan S/o Late Bhulan Iram, aged about 18 years, Vijay Prasad S/o Late Bhulan ram,,aged about 10 years, Virendra S/o Bhulan Ram, aged a'boutv8 years, Smt. Manmatia Wd/o Bhula IRam, aged about‘40 years, L B & C a're minors, through their natural guardian Mother Smt. manmatia, ‘ AII R/o Village Fundurdihari, P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt.‘ Sarguja (C.G.) Smt.‘ Jagriti Singh Wd/o ILate Ramlakhan, aged about 3O years, Lalit Vijay Singh S/o Lat 10 years, Late Ku.Akriti Singh D/o Ramiakhan Singh aged about 6 years, Bhanupratapki‘Singh S/o Late Ramiakhan Singh, aged 6 v g years, a bout Ramlakhan, aged W.P. Art 227 NO. Q” 2011 :1. ‘ n e Prahakar Singh S/o Late Ram Lakhan Singh aged about 4 years, B to E are minors through their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jagriti Singh Wd/o Ram Lakhan 'Singh, All R/o Village Fundurdihari, P.S/Tahsi Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Ram Narayan S/o Late Kanwal Sai, aged about 22 years, Raju S/o Late Devnath, aged about 18 years, All R/o Village Fundurdihari, P.5/Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS Yashoda Bai W/o Mahnguram, aged about 32 years, Caste Gond, Occupation—Agricultural, R/o Village Harratikara, P.S. & Tahsil ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) , State of M.P. now Chhattisgarh Sarguja RESPONDENTS/ 1. DEFENDANTS 2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF through Collector, (C.G.) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA b i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 434/2011 PETITIONERS Prabhudayal and others Versus RESPONDENTS : Yashoda Bai and another Aggearance: Shri DN. Prajapati, counsel for the petitioners. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (27.01 .201 1) Challenge in this petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting petitioners/plaintid‘s prayer for amendment in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC. (2) The plaintiffs tiled the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in July, 1995. The written statement was filed by the defendants in March, 1996 and since then suit is pending consideration. Admittedly, plaintiEs evidence is already closed and _ the matter is fixed for recording of statements ofdefendants witness. ‘ (3) The subject application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was preferred on 7/10/2010 i.e. atter more than 15 years from the date of ‘ filing of the suit proposing a new paragraph 8-A with an explanation ,2? that the amendment is necessary on account of the Trial Coults permission to place on record some more documents. (4) The Trial Court has rejected the application mainly on the ground of delay in filing the application, though it has also been mentioned in the impugned order that the proposed amendment is hit by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC. (5) It is settled law that in a suit filed prior to coming into force of the CPC Amendment Act, 2002, the proviso to Rule 17 Order 6 is not applicable, however, yet it is for the Trial Court to decide whether amendment is necessary and/or the same is inordinately delayed. (6) In the. proposed amendment made in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC (Annexure P—4) the plaintiE is mainly trying to raise facts which are matters of evidence and the inference to be drawn on introduction of new document on the basis of recital/statement of facts mentioned in the said document. Plea regarding the daughters having no right on the basis of custom prevalent in the Gond Tribal Community is already available in para 5 ofthe application. (7) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on South Konkan Distilleries and another Vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik and others, r 2009 AIR SCW 422 to argue that the Court should be liberal in granting amendment. In the same judgment the Hon’ble Supreme ‘: Court has rejected the prayer for amendment in the written statement i/on the ground that it was submitted 13 years after tiling ofthe written {w statement. The other judgment Sumesh Singh Vs. Phoolan Devi and others, AIR 2009 SC 2831 1's also distinguishable on facts. ’ (8) The Trial Court has not committed any palpable error or manifest illegality while rejecting the prayer for amendment. There is no substance in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia which fails and is dismissed. (9) k Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge