HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR WRIT PETmON (Art. 227) No. 767/20JO PETITIONBM RESPONDENT PLAI3STTIFF RESPOm3ENT DEFENDANT N0. 2 RESPONDENT DEFENDANT N0. 3 HE^PONDENT DBFENDANT No. 4 4. Krishna Chand Ghliura S/o Keshav Chhiira aged about 50 years, R/o in IrQnt of Shastri Bazar, House No. 490, Baijna.thpara, Hospital Ward, Raipur (CG) Versiis Bu'umal Gaiigivani, S/o Majnaiiial Gangw7ani, R/o Telibandha, Raipur (CG) C/o Mahesh Alu Bhaiidar, Amardeep Talkies Premises, Raipur (CG) Rafharam Chhura, S/o Nekhaka Chhura, R/o in front of Shastri Bazar, House No. 490, Baijnafhpai'a, Hospital Ward, Raipur (CG) ChhabUal Bhoi, S/o Pandey Lal Bhoi, R/o D-36, Rajendra Nagar, Raipi.iT (CG) LIC Housing Finance Lmiited Area Ofilce ShyaGa Market, Pandri, Raipur (CG) SBs- Hon. Shri N.K. Aganval, J. PRESBNT:- Shri B.D. Gtu-u, Advocate, for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (22-3-2010) Per N.K. Aearwal, J 1. Heard on admission. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12-1-2010 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 4/2009 whereby and whereimder, ti.ie application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of written statement has been rejected by fhe trial Court, the petitioner has prefen'ed this petition. 3. Indisputably the application for aiiiendment was prefen'ed after commencement oftrial. It is also not a case put forth by the petitioner fhat despite due diligence, the petitioner could not raise the matter at tlie time offiling his written statement or before commcncement of trial or WQ.S not within fheir knowledge at the tiiiie offilmg ofwritten statement. ^'.^^ ^k m.^-,^: y 4. As per proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., no application for ameudmeut shaU be allowed alter tiie trial has commenced unless the Court comes to tlie conclusion that ia spite of clue diligence, tlie porty could not liave raised tlie inatter before commencement of trial. The Supreme Court in Vidyabai and others -v- Padmalatha aiid another reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409 has held in para 19 of its judgment that in such cases, the Court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow tlie amendiiient. 5. Therefore^ tii view of fhe proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case, learned trial Court. has not committed any illegality or in'egularity leading to maiitfest injustice so as to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court Lmder Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 6. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^ ^