•^ ^ 81SIUIE BENCh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Art.227) N0. Mi /2010 PETITIONER DEFENDANT ^^, ^s^^ ^^•y^ ^*y ^"" Brijlal Sewani, S/oLate Shri Motanmal Sewani, Aged about 54 years, R/o Ward ^) No.15, Sindhi Colony, Shop Address : M/s Shankarlal Arjundas, Ganj Road, Nawapara, Sub Tahsil - Nawapara Rajim, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) versus ^ Virumal Nagwani, S/o Late Shri Jiyal Das Nagwani, Aged about 53 years, r/o Ward No.14, Ganj Road Nawapara, Sub Tahsil - Nawapara Rajim, Distt. Raipur- (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1A RESPQNDENT PLAINTIFF ^ ^^ .l^^ :r ^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTS6GARH AT BIIASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashafrt Kumar Mlshra PETtTiONER DEFENDANT RESPONDENT PLAJNTIFF Writ Petition (227) No.1079 / 2010 BryteSSewani Versus Virumal Nagv^nl Shri SuniS Otwara, counsel for the petitioner. WRFT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 QF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDIA . '•••^. .!: : 1 ..,SS ORALORDER (15.03.201^ In a suft for eviction fitedi by the ptairitiff on 15-04-1998 an appticatlon for amendment in the plaint has been atlowed by the trla! Court by the impugned order. The suit inltially fded pfQjecfed bQnafIde need of the tandlord for non-residential Reed of the elder son. Sy the ^ proposed amendment the piaintlff is now projee-ting the non-FesideRtial need of hls yoynger son as w^ll as for himsslf. (2) Counsel for the pet'rtioner submlts that such an amendment cannot be aliowed as the ptalntiff is now prQjecttr^j the resjdentlat need also umjer Section 12(1)(e) whidi changes the nature of suit. He also submlte that the amQRdment is hlghly belated and that the plalntWs assertion that the amendment is a consequentia! amendment Is absoiutety incQrrect. (3) Annexure P/4 Is the appllcation moved by the plaintlff to msert para 5 (b) "in the plaint, ona reading of the proposed amendment It would appear that the ne^rty projected needl Is ateo tor non-re^identiai pyrpose^ (4) tt is settled taw that the proviso to order 6 Rule 17 of O.P.C. irtssrted by C.P.C. ^nendment Act, 2W2. came Into force with effect trom --^1. 01-07-2002 and that by virtue of Section 16 bf the amendment Act, fhe l:Z-;':.;%:5£»n:.te"l;,;.a 3^ ^- 2^ sakj amendments ar©prospective In nature. Thus, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. is n(rt applicable IR asuit Instituted priorto01^)7-2(X)2. (5) tt is also settled that in a pending suit for swction the Sandlord *s ent'rtted1 to add any other ground for evtct'iQR as contemplated under Sectlon 12 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation ContrQJ Act, 1961. Merely by projecting the need for hlmself and for his younger son, In additiQn to the eariier pteadled need ofthe ©Iderson, the nature ofthesujt does not change« <6) Counsel tor the petitioner has relled on 2<%% A/R SCW 6044 M/s JRevaJBQtu Swfders aipfd Oe^etepers Vs. Af/s< Sons & Ors. In para 67 of the saiei judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court has fesued the guictelines. It has foeen held that the first reqylrement for aHowlng an annendment is to examine whether the amendment Is Imperativejor proper and effectlve adjuciication of the case. <7) Ini the present case the landlord has fited the suit fQf evsction and he is seeklng amendment to msert need for himseif and his younger son also in additionai to the need of his slder son. Theamendment appears '^ to be necessary for complete and effective adjudicatiojii ofthe svlt. - (8) The trtal Court has not CQmmitted any error of junsdictjon by allowlng the amendment. (9) The present petition under ^ticle 227 of the Const'rtutlon of Indla tails andl Is hereby ciismiaseci, Sd/- F Prashant Kumar Mishra i Judge M ^