,1\ <^^ M PETITIONER/: (Plaintiff) HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.5602 of2010 Rajesh Kumar Choudhari, S/o Vishwambhar Choudhari, aged about 40 . years, R/o Gdnganagar Ward, Gangamuda Para, Purana Geedam Naka, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) RESPONDENT/: (Defendants) Versus 1. Darshansingh Sardar, S/o Gatasingh Sardar, aged about 70 years, R/o Ganganagar Ward, Gangamundapara Purana Geedam Naka, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 2. Smt. Manju Jha, W/o Satyadev Jha, aged about 45 years, R/o Anupama Chowk, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (19-7-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 20-7-2010 passed by the1st Civil Judge Class-ll, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.55A/2007, whereby the application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC on behalf of the petitioner herein for alternate relief has been dismissed by the said Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the plaint, copy of the application filed under Order 2 Rule 2 (3) of the CPC and copy ofthe application filed under Order6 Rule 17 ofthe CPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially suit claiming following reliefs has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein, on the basis of agreement to sale dated 8-6-2007: - 1. 'q? f^ cTT^t c^- y^|c||c[| •^tTcp 1 gT^T pttqiRd f^q" ^erq" 1^ R-ll'ch 08-6-07 ^ 31dJ[dc||c{ WRT c^ ^Zf -cp^- ^PT ^T^FT 3BT 3fk ^ ^T 1^- ^FTT^ ^ ^rfSTcFTR m^f 11 ^RRPT ^ b|tq"l^c^ 311^1^1 TRR ^tl S%£. M. ^ il's -<t" ^-s^^:" ?NI<«Nir.. 2. "?T? f^ ^fc^ f^t^T ^f ^ffcy? 28-7-07 yRlcllcTl^ui ^p^ q^q-^ 'g^r ^r 3fk ^cT cy?q^ T^ Ptt4lRd f^ ^TFt c^ cfTRUT ^T 3ft\r 3T^£T ^tf^T f^T "iJTT^ ^t f^t TRFT ?f | 3. 'q? f^ yRlciicTi •c^c^ 2 c^ q^T ^r 3^ ^q- ^ p|t4lf^d ^t^T T^ 'c^ Pl(^Ic<T1 ^RT^T cTK -^fCRT c^ ^4 ^ ^I^IM^UI chl4c||^| 3fk c^JTT ynf^T ^ ^fc^ ^ ^TT^ Pl^l^ll ^RH f^lf ^TT^ f^ c^qr ^t| 4. '^? f^ 'cTT^t ^t 3T^T "^Tgf^T 3|jdl^ MR|c||c^4|u| -^ •fl^p[ •g^ ^f^ ^i-i^^i ^ii^id^ 'vjt^in w^ti 5. 'q? f^ ^TT^ ^t yfacii<{|^i"i ^ ZTT^- ^zr Rolcii^ uTT^ ^t c^qr ^t | Thereafter, by filing application under Order 2 Rule 2 (3) of the CPC, the petitioner has prayed for grant of permission to claim relief relating to return of advance by separate suit which has been dismissed and, thereafter, the aforesaid application for amendment has been on behalf of the plaintiff/ petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No;2 opposesthe petition and submits that the application for amendment filed on behalf ofthe petitioner is time barred and the said application has been filed after commencement of trial. The plaint reveals that it has been drafted cleverly and the ptaintiff has tried to avoid payment of court fees, but after dismissal of application filed under Order 2 Rule 2 (3) of the CPC the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid amendment application in which he has proposed the amendment for return of advance of Rs.1,35,000/- with 9% interest. 5. Virtually, substantially, the suit was filed on the basis of agreement to sale for specific performance on step by step basis and the plaintiff has drafted the plaint cleverly to avoid payment of court fees, may also to void the jurisdiction of superior courts. However, in accordance with proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 22 ofthe Specific ReliefAct, 1963, the plaintiff is entitled t6 claim such relief and is also entitled to amend his plaint at any stage of the proceeding. The aforesaid entitlement of the plaintiff is not covered by the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. But considering the cleverness of the plaintiff, the petition is allowed and the aforesaid order dated 20-7-2010 passed by the 1 Civil Judge Class-ll, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.55A/2007 is quashed subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- to the respondents within fifteen days from today before the trial Court. 6. It appears from the alleged amendment that if the amendment application is allowed, the court will cease its pecuniaryjurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to file fresh amendment application within twenty days from today -—^>. •~y?, f V "v ^ "^&^ ^ ""s^ ^ v^=-€.?" "^^s?^'"' Soma k along with requisite court fees before the trial Court. The respondents are at liberty to contest such application on the ground of limitation. In case the court finds that the alleged relief claimed and valuation made by the plaintiff would not be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, then the court shall submit record along with amendment application and court fees paid before the District Judge for appropriate order/transfer of the suit to the court having territorial & pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit in accordance with Section 15 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Courts Act, 1958. _ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge •^