R^i":s;^^ :^Wi: :,llgit,i;l^ ^'^^ '^. ^y^ua \^: 118 •y'^"^' 'f:i^ ^•"^Q' ^i'. MQas:iil .3' P W ffti.(y,;.3 Bii 1^3j 1?11 ili ^^^ .r!il's "i C :g: :-^: m: 'i m { S.B: Hon'bksShN^raSliai^iRunltoMishra WritPeitttion<227) N6.7039/2010 PETITIQNER :^^^^^^^^^ S^ ^Versus.; '! ' ;' '. RESPONDENT Trust Shri Laxnunarayan Mafaaria.i, Kffla Mandir,Durg ;A@Bearance; ,'^ •..•,, ;-.' !". ::' .:.. Shri^P.R.iPatanfcai^ counsel BM- the^petitioner. , •7;.- ^'WRl^EHiETKiWiMB^ :i''%'@ <iMa®[ IiiKffls!^ Heard. ^lLZ.Iit® ^(2^; The tHa^lcourt^has rejeetedipetitione^ uriderOrder 6 Rute 17 ofCPC wM bf issues^sAen the rnatter was^fixsS fw ree^ ;(3^i'Leamed.';(x)uns^;;^the'!^pe^ ^sein3ing:;l®gal^,njQti^l(iatB^',3/'lKl^^^^^ 2Q@8.Hewould^lsufenyt1llatiniaqe^%^ :suhmittuig:::'thal;{|ot •Earma.'lSfaitMll^igFa'wal is!,l2l&.|SarvarafcaT':oijtlie|. •teiagle^and^tie1instant:i^'is'EE eferrei|l^one ^in(^,Kumar;:^gra^aii: ^w^g^as?;<^ief|:ta-ustee'^f^theg|t^^ :lamenclme^l^oTt'perm:i^ii^i!|i|||5 ;nQt|(;ei^da.tefi; ^I0^83jgsg)|||® ^b|!lialt||)^p|n||||i^ :;^Gcaean|;S|Bal}]tS%iaffiBjiil|SUKI»ilW;®iiMsaiiS^^^ ^•^s' iilst3Etuitadi' a&a^s- '•WsSWs^W "I'lT^ 'illil ^ 'i -i| :.^; ''! il ..fl 's i- liM II i '•^:'y-i^'-'-^'K-fi:'^s^::i ..l?t!l ffiltj i4'; K^y^. (4) On perusal ofparagraph 4 pfthe writteii statement filed in this petition as Annexure P-2 it would be clear that the present petitionerAlefendant ha& alrea4y pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled tobring tlle presentsuit. I (5) Inthe Opinicmof^scourtfhesaMpleadmgmadem the writtBnstatementvroulditself'allcnvtliM^iticmertoraisegro^ abqut validify; of the riotice<^lsb, Decause if the suit preferred by VmodK^inarAgrawaIa^ngasthec^ by necessary ^rolla^ta legal nqtKe^sent by Mm^^^^^w^ fwithout,My;legat!au11i<3i^':.:':.'i^'^..^^^^ (6) Ttes,^ leamed tnal court has correctly rejected the applicatidn. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Cburt, in the matter of Vidyabal and others Vs. Padmalatha andanother 000^ 2 SCC40»^^N^^ faeld thatafiwcQmmeneementoftrialaprayerfbF be allowed unless party seekmgleave to amend the pleading safisfiefe the courtthat Ue couMncrt have ma^the said ple^ ofhisplamt/wi^nstatementandl^inspiteGfd^ preveiitedbyanxsuBBeieritcausetQ^t^ present case the subje<rt matter 6f^^^ fcnowledgeofthepefitioneraeilietlmelofSfilmgwntt^ (7) Leamed|couns&l for ^ 'of;5upreme^Gourt:'fe:tlie:;ina^^'®aBwi:Sn^^ Manc^rSmghandAnQtli^fc^ has relied ori thei ludgm^Bt? ::s- Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others, AIR;SGW1538..' .:: : .. • !::: ..•,' ;.. -:• •1: (8) In the present case this court, afiter going through^ wntten statement filed by the plamtiff is satisfied tfiat the pmpdsed amendment is not at all necessary. (9) In this view ofthe mattei, the decision relied bylhe petititoner is not applicable in tfae &cts ofthe present case. (10) Rw aUlJteaferesaid reasons,tiie instantpetitiQn isdismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge t: ?1 ] ti lj-1 :L.