•.^l^»^- '& HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUS PETITIONER/ Writ Petttion ( C) No. 4833 of 2008 Ajay Kuinar Agrawal, s/o Brij Moban Agrawal, aged about 32 years, r/o viUage Dauipara, Raigarh Tahsil aad Distt. Raigarh, Cfcliatdsgarh. Versus 1. 2. 4. Mohd. Abdul Gafar, s/o Abdul Sattar, aged about 65 years, Palace Road, Raigarh (CG). State of Chhattisgarh through CoUector, Raigarh (C.G.). Asgari Akhtar, w/o Firoz Akhtar, aged about 40 years, R/'o Chotiattarmuda, Raigarh (C.G.). Murlidbar Agrawal, s/o Netram Agrawal, aged about 48 years, r/o Raigarh Chhattisgarb. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF (SB :Hon'bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present;- Shri Sourabh Sharuia, Advocate for the petitioner. Sbri Sanjay Shyaia Agrawal, Advocate for fhe respondents No. 1, 3 & 4. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy.' G.A. for the State/respondeiit No. 2. ORAL^ORD^ (Passed oa 06/08/2010) 1. Heard. Order impugned dated 17/4/2008 passed by 4dl Additional DistrictJudge (P.T.C.) Raigarh in CivilSuit No. 22-A/2007 pemsed whereby appUcation for amendinent of fhe plaint relatmg to future event/event occurred during pendency offhe suitwas dismissed. Leamed coiuisel for fhe petitioner submits fhat iaitially plaiutiff has filed suit for declaration and pennaaent iujunction restrainuis the defendaats/respondents from interference in ttie possession but during pendency of civil suit under the garb refusal of 7^ <(./ f •^ teiuporary iiijiinction respondents have dispossessed fhe petitioner ia. soine part of the suit laad therefore in order to decide real controversy and to avoid the inultiplicily of fhe suit petitioner has filed appUcation for amendment ia fhe pleadiug relating to future ^y event which flie Court has iUegaUy disnussed. 4. On the ofher haud, leamed counsel for the respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 opposed the petition aad submits that Court below has rightiy dismissed the appUcation on the ground fhat plauitiffs were never ia possession of the suit laiid. Respondents have never dispossessed fhe petitioner from. the suit land on the ground of possession of the defendant on the suit laad, uyunction has been refased by the Court below. In fhe present case issues have been fi-aiued aud trial has been comrnenced fhercfore petitioner is not entiUed to aoieud his pleadktg after commenceiaent offhe trial. 5. Learued counsel for fhe respondents No. l, 3 & 4 placed reUance in ttie matter of Rddheti Shycun. cuut another v. ChhdM. Nath and others rcported fai (2009] 5 SSC 616 in which Apex Court has held that laid down the law relatiug to essential distinctions between exercise of power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of Indiaa. 6. Onler impugued, Copy of petition, copy of plaiat, copy of other documents perused adinittedly, previously petitioner has filed fhe suit for declaration aad permaueat iujunction restraiaiug the defendant from. iaterference in. possession of the petitioner and after refusal of teinporary ugunction present petitioner had ffled fhe aniendinent appUcation relating to future event on the grouiid that durina pendencv of suit respondents have dispossessed the J^ OTP -^- 7. petitiouer relating to some pordon of the suit land. Defiiiitely, ttiis ground was not avaUable to fhe plaintiff on the date of filuig of the suit aad on fhe ground of future event petitioner has filed present application for amendiuent which is permissible under Proviso -2 Order -6 Rule -17 of the Code of CivU Procedure, 1908. Both the pardes have not led their evidence aud no prejudice would be caused to opposite party. ConsequenUy, Order unpugned is not sustamable under the law. Order impugned is hereby set aside. Application fiiled on behalf of the petitioner for amendment ia fhe plaiat is hereby aUowed. Petitioner shaU cany out necessaiy aniendinent withia two w?eeks. Respondents niay also make consequential aiaendiuent. No order as to costs. 8. Certi&ed copy as per rules. Sd/- T.P Sharma Judge I -ft-