^ci/ IHGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR -c/ SB : HON'BLB SHRI JUSTICE PRITIMKBR DIWAKBR W.P. (22*H MO. 2303/3a)8 PETITIOWER Plsmtiff RESPONDENTS Versus 1. Defend.cajjlt. 2. 3. Ashok Qupta, S/o. Late MaagU Piasad Gupta, aged about 50 years, Occupation Business, R/o. Village Mahalpara Road, BaiJ'ntUUipur, Uistt. Korea (CG) Vtaod Gupta, Son of Late SIuvratan Gupta, aged about 58 years, Occupation Business, R/o. Vfflage Mahalpara Road, BaikuBfhpur, Distt. Korca (CG) Smt Krishiia Gupta, Wd/o. Late Prabhat Gupta, Aged about 49 vears Smt Jyoti Gupta, D/o. Late Prabhat Gupta, aged about 49 years 4. Deepak Gupta, S/o. Late Prabhat Gupta, aged about 26 years 5. Suraj @ Banti Gupta, S/o. Late Prabhat Gupta, aged about 21 ycars 6. Ncha Gupta, D/o. Late Prabhat Gupta, aged about 18 years AB. r/o. Mahalpara Road, Ward No.l, Baikunthpur, Distt Koiea (CG) WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLB 227 OFTHB CONSTITU'nON OF IMOIA ABoearance: 5. Shri D.N.Prajapati, counscl for the petitioaer. ShriA-K.Prasad, coimsel for respondente No. 1,2,3 8& None for respondent No.4 though served. None for respoudeiit No.6. ORAL ORDBR (23.04.2009) With the consent of fhe parties, fhe matter is heard finaUy. Chalta^ge in the present writ petitmn te to the order dated 1.4.2008 passed m Cwil Suit No. 12-A/2006 by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Baikunflipur, Distt. Koiea by whicli the application as filed by the petitioner uuder Order 6 Rule 17 of fhe Code of Civjl Procedure seelriag certaia amendiaent has been rejected. Contention oflearaed counsel for the petitioner is fhat fhe aniendinent has becoiac necessaxy because during the pendency of fhis suit, the respondent has raised construction over fhe sult laad. Accordmg to him, the amendment as sought which is a subsequeat event of developinent, if not aUowed, the plaintiff wffl suffer irreparablc loss. He fiuther submits fhat till date his evidcnce has aot started aud even otfaenrise no hanu or prejudicc is goiug to be caused to the respondent if the amcndment is allowed. Supportiag the order, Sfari Prasad,leamed couasel for fhe respoondents submits fhat he has not aiade aay constructiDn dttriag the pendency of the suit and by way of amendinent, the petitioner wants to change the veiy nature ofthe case. I have heard counsel for fhe respectwe pardes aad Iiave perused fhe record. This Court is ofthe opinion that^fhe amendment is not aUowed, the ^laintifiF/petitiouer inay suffer irraparable loss whereas if the a.mendment is aUowed, no prejudice would cause to fhe defendauts. In the result, the petition succeeds. The amendment sought by the petitioner vide Aitaexure P/3 is aUowed. The court below is directed to permit the plaintifFto canyout the amendm.ent and then. to proceed further. The defendants aae permitted to saake consequential amendinent ia the written statenient. Learucd counsel for fhe partfes submit that the c^se is pendiag since 1.3.2006. The Court below is directed to expedite the proceediugs of the suit aad if possible, decide the same wifhin a period of six nionths finna the date of receiptofthis order. ——— Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge Suguxia