^J:. v.^' PETITIONERS Defendants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGH AT BILASPUE^ (Hon. Nr. Justice Pritjnker Dswaker) VVRtT PETITiON (227) No. 4061 of 2008 1. 2. VERSUS RESPONDENT PSaintiff Ghanshaym AghrawaS, Son of Shri Nohan Lat Agrawal, aged about 48 years; - Smt. Heera Devi, Wife of Shri Ghanshyam Agrawai, aged about 43 years; Both by caste pf Agrawa! and resident of ViJSage and Tahsii SaraipaSi, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Devcharan, Son of Trilokchand, aged about 43 years, Caste Agrawaf, Resident of Village and Tahsil Saralpali, District Mahasamun€l(G.G.) !V!r. P.P. Sahu, counsei forthe petitioners. SVEr. Y.C. Sharma with Ms, Sareen Khan, coujisel for Tesponderifc ' . . ' ^ . WR3T PETITSON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF TI-IE CONST1TUTION OF JNDSA ~'-'" ^ • • • Q..RDE_R (08.04.2009) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 21.04.2008 passed by Civil Judge. Ciass ii Saraipali, District Mahasammund in CM! Suit No.7-A/200S whereby the application filed by the petitloners/ defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civj! Procedureseeking amendment in the written statement, has been rejected. 2) Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the amendment sought for vide Annexure P/3 is formal In nature and itjust elaborates the earJier pleadings made by the defendants. The amendment sought for reads as under:- " 13 ^r f^? yRicjs41 ww^ 3 €^ri1^' ^PT 1ra'?iT ^rcnr'dt ^^fN ^rr^T^T ^t ^yr <4^ ^^<^^^ urf^ ?^^^^ ^ ^RT^ ^ ^T^dWi^ \ifht slciWir ^t ^t €l^l^ld ^t 1 y W^ W^ff^ ^nvi<^c{^ ^t 1^5 !gt vifRl ^ m^: ^ft ^li^dld €to^t ^>t ^RT ^Nt ^Nt ^tw czi^K ^rr ^^ ^ { 13 iT f^» ^f^Nt ^CTT^ 1 ^ PifciPT^ X^f ^^f41 'B^f^ 2 ^ c[RT W^ W^hl ^{^^i ^^F? oy^l4 ^T ^PI ^^ ^ i ^Pi 1^RT "^ Plcil^fl ''wff^ ^I^-M^ ^T ^t^'slH ^ft ^cFT ^y^iTqf 8-n | W^ff?l ^{^d-i ^f ^J*i^^ 1?^ ^t c2?^WS[ ^ ^[X'fS^T ^"^ ^ 4»1^"{ ^TW ^TTOl ^ ^^ ^R^T STT t ^^ ^ ^fPT^t ^T ^l ^T^ ^ | ^(^-c{<^ ^11^<MS<?| ^T^T ftc'F ^ w^ l^wr l^re irepr cf ^SR^T <t?}^^i^ ^^ ^ ^ ^TFTf^W cp^r ^" ^TC i4Rt^t<{1 <i>*lf4> 1 ^ ftRTFS^ ^ 19Rl^}c^ <t»*ii4? 2 ^ ^T^lj W^< ^ WTO^? ^ ^TO ^Nrf^T ^OTr[ ^<^TV? ? *lcb}-d gfaqi41'tul ^t 15^PT ^ f^, ^^ ^ ^^? w^ ^r^ ^t^T^mi B^r Tronpi wi ^rft^ffsrR ^^ ^ fi^iR^f^ f^icfra^f ^ c^q^t^^a t f 3) It has been arguned by the counsel for the petitioners that no prejudice Is going to be caused to the piaintiff if the amendment is ailowed. It is further argued by the counsel for the petitioners that Saw in respect of amendment is very iiberal. 4) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submit that the beiated amendment cannot be allowed and this has been sought for just to linger on the matter. 5) I have heard counsel for the parties and persued the material available on record. 6) Pleadings made by the defendants in their written statement is\ sought to be expanded elaborateiy by the proposed amendment. Bare \ ^ ' • ' . ' ' , ' \ reading of the proposed amendment in the pleading reveals that no prejudice is iikeiy to be caused to the plaintiff if the amendment is allowed. If so required, the plaintiff may give additionai pleadings to the amendment in the written statement sought for by the defendants. Counsel for the petitioners piaced reliance on the decision oftheApex Court in the matter of Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another 1. The relevant portion reads as under:" 14. 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 partles. 1 2009 AIRSCW 899 -3- Oniy if such a condition is fulfjlled, the amendment is to be afiowed. However, proyiso appended to Order V!. Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. If puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unEess the juriscSictional fact, as envisaged therejn, is found to be existing, the court wili have no jurisdiction at a!I to allow the amendment ofthe ptaint. 7) Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforecited judgment of the Supreme Court I am of the considered view that the amendment sought for by the defendant inthe written statement has to be ailowed. Accordingly the petition is aliowed and the order dated 21.04.2008 is hereby set aside. If the plaintiffwants to add anything jn • support of his contention he is permittedto do so. 8) , Counsel for the petitioners submits thatthe suit is pending since 2005, therefore, a direction regarding early disposal of the same may be issued to the court below. Accordingiy, the court beiow is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Due co-operation is expected from the parties for eariy disposal of the suit. 9) No order as to costs. ; g^/. pritinkerDiwaker 1 Judge ^