.^ <D IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.V ^j^ PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS ^•'^ i..>^A^" ^y^-^ ^^ 1. Bhuvan Lal, S/o Hajari Ram Sahu, aged about 35 years; 2. Vishwasa Bai, W/o Hajari Ram, aged about 50 years, Both are Agriculturist R/o Village Dhaneli, Police Station and Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS /"" 1. Hajari Ram Sahu, S/o Dhelau Ram, aged about 60 years, Occupation Chowkidari, At Present R/o Ganganagar, Khamtarai, Police / Station Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Collector, Durg (C.G.) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CnN.^TTTUTION OF INDIA ^^- '^" RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS "'^^^ ;-t^'^ -m'? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.91 of 2010 Petitioners Respondents versus Bhuvan Lal and another Hajari Ram Sahu and another Present: Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri R.R.Sinha, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.2. Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10th February, 2011) The instant writ petition is finally disposed of with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, .-> 2. The trial Court has rejected the plaintiffs' prayer for amendment in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'the Code'). 3. The plaintiffs preferred the suitfor declaration and permanent injunction with respect to property mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint. According to the petitioners/plaintiffs, the respondent/defendant No.1 has started residing with some other lady during the lifetime of plaintiff No.2, who is his legally married _- , first wife. It is also pleaded that defendant No.1 may waste or ffenate the property. Defendant No.1 denied the allegations and M^ ^w*^^ .•^'x'^"^, ..,—~^.^ 173) '^.^,^" ^ submitted that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the petitioners. 4. Defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, which was allowed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code on 6-10-2009 mentioning that the amendment is consequential in nature. 5. The trial Court has rejected this prayer for consequentiat amendment on the ground that since the plaintiffs have not expressed any desire to make consequential amendment at the time of hearing of defendant No.l's application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, the subsequent prayer cannot be allowed. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from grave illegality inasmuch as the plaintiffs are entitled to make consequential amendment in view of the amendment of pleadings made by defendant No.1. It is not necessary for the plaintiffs or for that matter any party to the proceeding to express his desire to make consequential amendment at the time of hearing of the application moved by the other party under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. If on examination of the amended pleading, the other party is of the view that it requires to be properly answered or rebutted, it is always open for him to move an application to make consequential amendment in accordance with the provision contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. -1,::":"\ ^ ^y@a^ j .1 v':^^—"~-^j, '^s^ Gopal ^ 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. Petitioners' application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code stands allowed. The writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \-'