-& HSGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BiLASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.3261 of 2007 Petitioner Sriniwas Verma, S/o. Late B.P. Verma, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Adhanpur Houslng Board Colony, Dharam Pura, Dist. Bastar, CG. Versus 1) State of C.G., through P.S. Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar—Jagdalpur, QG. , . : ' ' 2) Smt. Simm! Verma, W/o. Sriniwas Verma, aged abput 26 years, R/'o. behind Khistdas Police Constable Compound, Naya Munda Para, Jagdalpur, CG. -Vs {-i> (WritPetition under Articie 227 oftheConstitutionoflndia) SB: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihofri Present: Shri G.S. Ahuluwaiia, counseiforthe petitioner Shri Satish Gupta,Dy.Gpvt. Advocate fortheState ORALORDER (Passedon12June, By this petition fiied under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10-5-2007 passedby the First Additional District Judge, Basiar, wtiereby and whereunder, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Ruie 17 oftheCodeof Civi! Procedure (forshort, "CPC")foramendmentoftheapplication,was rejected. 2) I have gon6 through the documents and the impugnedorder. i do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. It is admitted case that the petltioner vras we!l aware of thefact which he sought to be incorporated by way of amendment subsequentiy hyg|(ing^ I Si3 ,4; ^ 2-- an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C,. The petitioner has further not justified the defauit on his part by not incorporating the same in the first application despite knowing the fact; Learned Judge after considering ail theaspects ofthe matter dismissed theappiication on the ground that proviso to Ruie 17 of Order 6 oftheC.P.C., ciearly provides that no application for amendment shaii be aliowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that In sp'ite of due diiigence, the party couid not have raised the matter before the eommencement oTtrial, 3) It is not a case of the petitioner that before commencement of triai, the petitioner was not aware of the facts and he could not raise the matter earlier. Now, the witnesses have been examined and the case is at the state of finai hearing. At this stage, granting appiication of the petitioner would unnecessarily delay the trial, even otherwlse, under proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of the C.P.C.,amendment cannot be aiiowed at this stage. 4) !t is weii settled principie of law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction of judicial review of the ordsr passed by the Courtbeiow.in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings based on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of !aw or there is grave failure ofjustice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this court can also entertain the petition in its supervisory jurisdiction ifthere is perversity, irregularity or iilegality in the process of decision, not in the decision itself. i!/SS^"S^ '^ s- 5) Appiying the above settled principles of law to the facfs of the present case, it ctoes not warrant an interference with the impugned order passed by the Court below. 6) Tbus, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Jui^e