“.1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G L PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2’27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R . W.P. 227 N0. K369 l20\10 L PETITIONER: /éantosh Kumar Gupta, S/o Dr. Motilal Gupta, aged DEFENDANT No 1: about 35 years, R/o Kota, Tah. Kota, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDANTS: PLAINTIFFS: 1. Arun Kumar Mukharjee, S/o late Mahendra Kumar Mukharjee, aged about 56 years, R/o Vill. Kota, Tah. Kota, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) DEFENDANT NO- 3: 2. State of C.G., Through District Magistrate, Tah. / & Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ’(227) No.1 364/201 0 PETITIONER: Santosh Kumar Gupta DEFENDANT No.1: ' Versus RESPONDENTS: Arun Kumar Mukharjee and one another Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan ShriVasmva, J. Present: - Shri B.P.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Wnod Tekam, Panel lawyer for the State/respondents. ‘oRAL ORDER (Passed on 31 March, 2010) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been med against order dated 12/01/2010 (Annexure P-l)’. By the aforesaid order, plaintiff s application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been allowed. By the same order, petitioner’s application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC has been disposed of by holding that the proposed issue will be considered atter consequential amendment. 2. Assailing legality and validity of the impugned order,- learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the application was not bonatide in as much as earlier, plaintiE’ s application for grant of temporary L injunction was rejected on 6/09/07 holding that the plaintiE is not in possession of the suit land. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed by holding that he is not in possession. The application for amendment was made to overcome the objection with regard to the very maintainability of the suit. It has also been argued that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the case. Further submission of the learned :counsel for the petitioner is that delay in hling amendment application has not been explained and without considering this aspect, application for amendment has been allowed. It is also submitted that the Trial Court acted malafidely _ \ : in postponing consideration (of petitioner’s application for framing irrational issue. Since, the petition had {raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the suit, the same ought to have been decided at the earliest. : 3 . . A perusal of application for amendment (Annexure P-l 1) shows that plaintiff sought amendment in the plaint on subsequent development on the- averments that aher rejection of injunction application, defendant No.1 and 2 have constructed boundary wall on the land in dispute and have dispossessed the plaintiff 0n this alleged subsequent development, the amendment was prayed for. The suit as originally filed contained averments that the plainti&‘s are in possession of the suit land and a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction was sought Under these circumstances I am unable to accept the contenuon of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for amendment was not bonahde or that 1t changes the nature of the suit. It wrll always be open for the petitioner to submit consequential amendment in the written statement to deny the contents of proposed amendment. At this stage, it cannot be decided as to whether on the date of hling of the suit, plaintid‘ was in possession of the suit land. Findings recorded while deciding an injunction application are only prima facie consideration and not conclusive in nature. I am, therefore, of the considered'opinion that no jurisdictional error or perversity has been committed by the learned Trial Court by allowing plaintiff s application for amendment of the plaint. 4. In so far as petitioner’s grievance with regard to disposal of his application for haming additional issue is concerned, learned Trial Court has rightly recorded that in view of amendment of the plaint, it would be appfopriate to diEer consideration of the application for haming additional issue after consequential amendments. The application has not been rejected but the consideration has been diEered after consequential amendments, if any. This approach of the learned Trial Court cannot be 16/) said to be perverse 0t in any manner illegal. The allegation of malafide against Trial Court has been levelled without any material basis and therefore deserves rejection at the threshold. 5. Consequently, I do not find any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is summarily dismissed without notice. :‘W" Sd/- ‘\\ i‘“ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava \ i Judge ,. \