IbilkkEvHGwBLE HIGH €GHRT DE CHHA‘ETISGARH AT BILASBUR {CG 3 WRL'E PETEHQBLQZZ} NQ 53FH , GE 2Q1Q / PETiTiGHERS : 1. Raghav PraSad San {2f Lam Shri PLAINTEFFS Ramwiksha, Caste Kenwat, aged abaut 42 year‘s; 2. Pradeep Kumar Sen 0f Late Shri Ramvriksha, Caste Kenwat, aged abnut 36 yéars; Mst, Rajmamya W§dsw {3f Late Shri Ramvrikszha, aged abaut 55 years, Caste Kenwat; All are residents a? VEEkage Mahuadeah, Tahsa'J Samri, lip— TahSii ahankargarh, Distriet Surguja {G‘a}. VERSUS RESFGNDENTS .: in Kaiawati Wife 13f Laie Biradegi‘iwari DEFENDANTS Prasad, Bib Late Shri Ramvriksha aged abcui '45 year; Caste Kenwat, Resident of Viliage Mahuadeeh, ?o§§£s Staiéan Shankargarh, Tahséi Safari; District Surguja {Cii} 2. Leekawati W'sfe sf Shri Rajarsrg, D/G Late Shri Ramvrikshs, aged abaut’ 42 years, Rasideat at Diwani Bandh, TahsH ami Paiize Sia‘tign Baikunthgur‘ District Keriya (C.G.). 3. Sheeiawati W§fe 13f 5hr; Ramsumer, "Dla Late Shri Ramvr‘iksha, aged abbgéét 38 years, Reshjest Qf Junagara, Baikunthgzur, Districk Kariya ((16,). @Q/ Iadrawati Wife Qf ShrE BeEigaki Ram, ms Laie 5hr: Ramvn'ksha, aged ahaut 35 yearS, Resident af Bhaiyathan, Tah$§§ Surajpur, District Surguja éC‘G‘). Sushiia Devi Wife {Bf Shri Maabahal, Dla Late Shri Ramvr%k&’na, aged abaut 32 year$, Resident 6f Village Mahuadeeh, $hankarg-arh, Tahsii Samri, Surguja (QGj). State 9f Chhattisgarh, thrczugh he Caiiec‘mf Sargujai Ambikaiwr, District Surguja (CG; WRIT PETIIION UNDER ARHCLE 227 OF THE £GNSTITUTIQN GF LE‘JDIA i ‘.. V t HIGH COURT OF CHHATTXSGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’bie Shri Prashant Kmnar Mishra Writ Petition (227) N0. 5971/2010 PETITIONERS : Raghav Prasad and others Versus RESPONDENTS : Kalawati and others Appearance: Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.6. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (20.10.2010) Heard. (2) The trial court has rejected the plamtiffs/petitioners application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking leave to amend the plaint. The petitioners have tiled the suit in the year 2004—for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendants have already preferred their written statement and the contest is between the plaintiE and the defendant No.1 as the other defendants have admitted the claim ofthe plaintiff. (3) After recording of statement of four witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff, the subject application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was moved in April 2010 to introduce para l-A, 1-B and 9-A in the plaint to plead that the defendant No.1 Kalawati is not the daughter of late Shri Ramvriksh \ Kewat, but is the daughter ofthe first husband ofplaintitf No.3 Rajmaniya. 1V ‘ w r' (4) The trial court has dismissed the application after holding that proposed amendment is not based on any subsequent event and that the plaintiif has not been able to cross the hurdle and the juiisdictional embargo under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPCA (5) oouit is satisfied that the trial court has not committed any error of t jurisdiction while rejecting plaintiffs application for amending the plaint. On perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition, this (6) Admittedly, the trial has commenced and the plaintiff has already examined four witnesses. The contents of the amendment application do not suggest that the subject matter of the application are based on subsequent events, There is nothing in the application to satisfy the requirement ofthe proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC in as much it has not been stated in the application that the plaintiff could not have raised the amended plea before commencement oftrial inspite of due diligence. (7) In the matter of Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another (2009) 2 SCC 409 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to entertain an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC it is necessary for the party seeking amendment in the pleadings to satisfy that inspite of due diligence the pleadings proposed in the amendment could not have been raised at the time of filing ofthe suit. (8) In View of the above, the instant petition has no substance which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge iv I NJ y /’/l