c. io^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR YC.G.) WRITPETITION f227) N0. 7-c1^ OF 2010 ^ PETITIONERS Defendants r ^" \^....-;-r^ ^^^- .....•^•^c^ ^^^ 1. Ashwani Awadhiya, aged about 50 years, S/o late Sukhram Awadhiya, Amit Awadhiya, aged about 30 years, S/o late Narendra Awadhiya, Both are R/o House No. 39/20-21, Near Satyanarayan Mandir, Awadhiyapara, Tahsiland District Raipur (C.G.) A RESPONDENTS Plaintiff ^^,^"^"?' '"^^a?^.. .y '^ysy8^!'^f''% j 'y^i^^&t •^iSfi^ ^.^- 1. / 2. 3. ^" VERSUS Mst. Panju Awadhiya, aged about 55 years, D/o Late Sukhram Awadhiya, R/o House No. 39/20- 21 , Awadhiyapara, Behind Satyanarayan Mandir, Ward Bramhanpara, Awadhiyapara, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Vimla Awadhiya, aged about 48 years, Wife of late Narendra Awadhiya, Abhijeet Awadhiya, aged about 28 years, S/o late Narendra Awadhiya, 4. Aniket Awadhiya, aged about 26 years, S/o tate Narendra Awadhiya, 5. Anuj Awadhiya, aged about 24 years, S/o late Narendra Awadhiya, v/ / 7. /6. Ku. Sindhu Awadhiya, aged about 53 years, D/o Sukhram Awadhiya, Smt. Sangeeta Soni, aged about 48 years, D/o Late Sukhram Awadhiya, Respondent No. 2 to 7 are R/o House No. 39/20-21 Near Satyanarayan Mandir, Awadhiyapara, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Manju Awadhiya, Wife ofShri Rahaslal Awadhiya, aged about not known, R/o Awadhiyapara, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDFR ARTICLE 997 OF THE mNc;TTTl ITIQN OF INDIA 8. W. HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH WT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon*ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra WritPetttion(22n No.768/2010 PETmONERS DEFENDANTS RESPONDENTS PLAINTtFF Versus andanother.^^^^^^ ^ ^- ^ Mst. Panju AwadhiyaarKl others. Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. wprr pErmoN UNDER ARTICUE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "' / :11.::: :r^^^^^^^ ORALORDER (22.02.2010) l-1eard on admisskm. (2) By order impygned in this petttion, the leamed tria! Court ha^ ^ allowed yrtairtiffs apptteation under Order 6 Rute 17 of; C.P.O. ; permitting her to amend the plaint. (3) Admittedly, the suit is at a preliminary stage and issueshavemot yet been framed by the triat Court. The suit preferred by the plajrrtiff |. was fw partition and aUtrtnnent of 1/6 share in the suit preperty;andKfpr » in|unctk)n to the effect tt^it till the decree of partHion is passe<tith^ ^^ ';"!i ctefendant be restrained from causing darn^e or raising con^ructk>ri » , over the suit property. (4) In their written statement the present petjtioners/defendants rateed an objection that there are some other properties which haye? not been included in the suit. Thus, after filing of the wrttten st^ement the plaintiff soi^ht amendment in the plaint to incorporate and plead/ ^ that house No59/29/369 shatl atso be treated as suit liroperty^^^^^^^ s ,.!-,'.-;.^^i«%»^^ ^ : ;;?i alongwfth house No. 29/31(1)whtohbelon9tolateSukhramAwa<|w^^^^ Thus, after amendment house No.39/20-21, house No. 59/29^369 and house No.29/31(1) he®been described as the suit property. (5) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the ameFidment fe malafide and the plaintiff has tried to patch up the lacuna and su<^i amendment oi^ht noit to have been allowed by the trial Court. j (6) On perusal of the or^inal plaint, writtenstatement andNhe proposed amendmentit appears that aU the properties belor^inglo |the famBy has been made as the suft property in a suit forpartitipn.^ ^ suft is at a preliminary stage and the petitioner wouM noit be pr^udiced if the amendment is allowed. In lact interest <rf justice demands that y all such pteas whteh are relevarrt for justaiKl prpper decision faM^ween^^ the parties shouM be aUovwdto be pleaded, moreover, whenthesuf^ ^^m^-^^m::^ at a preliminary stage. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has W.SW^^:m ts1»1 :'t nol committed any error of law or jurisdlctton by allowingthe prayerfbr « amendment in the plaint. ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ » (7) Shri P.P.Sahu, leamed coynsel for the petitioners srt this stege, , •^ submits that the trial Court has not granted opportunfty ^ p^itioners to make consequential amendment. Needless to say that after amendnnent of the plaint the defendarrts/petitioners shall tie entitled to make amendment in consequence to the pleadings made by the plaintiff by way of amendment in their plairrt. ^^•^.^^^^^^^^ (8) Wtth these observations, the instant writ petition is dismi^ed.,, Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^