r PETITIONER T/Bodhan Ram, S/o Bokhi Kanwar, Defendant 'ag‘e‘d about 60 year, R/o Village Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 'ESPONDENTS 1. Sukhnath, S/o Late Bodkhi Kanwar Plaintiffs aged about 53 years, Occupation Agriculture, PUnni Bai, Wd/o Late Sodhan Ram .‘Kanwar, aged about 45 year, Occupation Housewife, Souda Bai, Wd/o Late Huiiya Kanwa r, aged about 60 yea rs, Occupation Housewife, - Janaki, Wd/o Sukhan Kanwar, aged about SO years, Occupation Housewife, Ali are Resident of Village Darima, P.S. Darima, SubTTahsii Darima, Tahsil ,Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja ’ (C.G.) Defendant No. 2 5. State of Chhattisgarh, /, Through: Collector, Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ' ‘ C JINDIA R ” IN THE HON"BLE WRIT PETITION OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR‘ (227) NO. l$%$ OF 2011 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 1889 of 2011 PETITIONER Defendant Bodhan Ram VERSUS Sukhnath & others RESPONDENTS Plaintiffs WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) resent : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shr‘i GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08.04.2011) The instant petition, filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety of order dated 22.01.2011, passed by the Vth Civil Judge Class II, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, in Civil Suit No. 11—A/09, whereby the petitioner’s application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are : aner commencement of trial i.e. when plaintiffs have already examined two witnesses, the defendant sought amendment in his pleadings. The same was rejected by the trial court. Hence this petition. “ 3. Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of North Eastern wenmawwttttisnannwmmlWaitintennisWttiitttttttttttttiitiiiimnn P @ Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRsl would submit amendment of pleadings are permissible even at appellate stage provided amendment does not work injustice to other party and is necessary for determination of question in controversy. 4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. Before considering the rival submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to advert Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, which reads as under : “Order 6 Rule 17 Amendment of pleadings—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party o alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court conies to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” k 6. ' In view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 the court’s jurisdiction to allow such application is taken away after commencement of trial unless the court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. ‘AIR 2008 sc 2139 \ 7. The Supreme Court in case of Vidyabaz’ and others v. Padmalatha and anotherz, has observed in para 19 as under : “19. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code 7 restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its 'urisdiction. The Court’s J 'urisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction to all to allow the amendment of the plain ." 8. The aforesaid proposition of law is binding on this court. By applying the aforesaid proposition of law to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the petitioner has not assigned any reason whatsoever why he could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial?. In View of above, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in disallowing the above amendment application warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by M 2 2009 (2) scc 409 the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 11. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sdl- N.K. Agrawal Judge