/^\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. •5cy/)-3 /2004 PETITIONERS. "^r >\^ ^w^ 1. Gulab Chand, aged 48 years, S/o RamaoTltar, ~!/^\^ //^'AN €^ S'T^ ..•' &• Karam Chand, aged 45 years, ^•'\..-fi^\ S/o Raraaoutar, ,'3. Shiv Chand, aged 42 years S/o Rainaoutar, /' ^,4. Subhash Chand, aged 40 years S/o Ramaoutar, All by caste Cherwa, R/o village Dandkar'wa, Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS s^^v^-^ '%?»—. RESPONDENTS t^^A c®*/,\> /^7 '3-<, :J-< Bundhani Wd/o Sukhnandan W/o Shridayal, aged 70 years, R/o village Dandkarwa, Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ^2; State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Sarguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f2 t, HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR W.P.No.5049 of 2004 GuAab Chsuid and others Vs. Biuidliani and another ORDER ^' . ^ ^ n :.< <^p' IV^ •o^' $) •<-^ Post for 10.05.2005 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge / 'i 1 mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.No.5049 of 2004 GuJab Chand and others Bun.dhani and another Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri Rahul Mishra, coiuisel for respondent no. 1 Shri Yashwaat Siagh, Govt. Advocate for respondent no.2 O R D E R (10.05.2005) Sunil Kumar Sinha, J, By fhis writ petition filed under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India, the petitioners who are fhe plaiiitiffs, have chaUenged the legality aad validity of fhe impugned ordei dated 09.12.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed iu Civil Suit No. 10-A of 2004 by fhe Civil Judge, Class-II, Pratappur, District Sarguja. (C.G) by which he has rejected fhe appUcation for amendinent of the plaint ffled under order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Cwil Procedure. (2) The brief facts are that the plaiatiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and also for pennanent injunction iri relation to the suit lands described iu Sckedule A-l of tiie plaint. The relicfs clauned ia the plaiat are that fhe plaintiifs /'-..'.. / 1. 7- be declared the absolute owners of the aforesaid suit lands. In fhe alteraative it is also prayed that if fhe claim of fhe plaiatiffs is not estabUshed on successoiy rights they be declared the owners as a result of perfecting their title by way of adverse possession. Further a decree for permanent injuiictk>n shoulcl also be passed ia fheir favour restrauung defendant no. 1, her servaats or agents fi~oni uiterfering with the possessioa of fhe plaintiffs. This suit was filed on 26.02.2004 to which a writteii statementwas filed on 13.7.2004. (3) On 08.12.2004 the plaintiffs fited aii appUcation for amendinent of the plaint under Order VI Rzde 17 of the CPC The plaiatifFs sought substantial aoiendiuent fhat during the pendency of the suit the defendaat with the help of her fanuly ineinbers dispossessed the plauittffs &OTB. the suit lands iu the inonfh of October 2004. Accordiagly, they proposed amendineat in valuation colLunn, the r'nhimn for the coiirt fee ete., and ultunately a relief of possession was also sought to bc added. The leamed trial Judge, afifcer hearing fhe parties disniissed this appUcation by fhe impugned order dated 09.12.2004. It is against this order, fhe plaintiffs have filcd fhis writ petition. (ff) l have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties aud have also perused fhe records. // / 'J "i 5 (s) Leamed counsel for the petitioners subniits that sin.cc a subsequent event took place during fhe pendency offhe suit, therefore, it was incuinbent upon fhe trial court to aUow such amendnient based on the subsequent event so as to reach the finality ia fhe ?i's between the pardes regaTding fhe controversy in relation to the suit lands. (6) On the other haad, leamed counsel for respondent no. l opposes fhe said arguinent. (7J It is a settled principle of law that fhe Court inay, at any stage of the proceediags, allow eifher party to alter or amend his pleadings in such inaiuier and on such tenns as inay be just, aiid aU such amendmLents shaU be inade as may be necessary for the purpose of determiniug fhe real questions in controversy between fhe parties. This is the inam. provision given under Rllle 17 of Order VI C.P.C. A proviso has also been added to this rule fhat no appUcation fbr amendBa.ent shatl be aUowed after the trial has coiiunenced, unless fhe court coines to the conclusion that in spite of due dil^ence, fhe party could not have raised the niatter before the commencenient of ftie trial. ('SJ The mam provision of Rule 17 of Order VI as weU as fhe proviso to the aforesaid rule ruake it clear that nonnaUy fhe amendineats are to be aUowed unless it appears on record fhat the party who could have raised the inatter before the /h1-' '"i<y.. ^ conunenceiuent of the trial has failed to do so inspite of due ditigence. The words used by fhe Legislature clearly indicate that aii ainendinent based upon subsequent event is never prohibited because adinittedly, the sam.e being the subsequent event it could not be raised before the coinmeiiceineat of the trial. (S) The HonT^le Apex Court ia the matter of Panke^a and another -Vs- Yellappa (detid) by LSs. And others reoorted in 12004} 6 SCC 415 held that if the granting of an aniendiueiit really subserves the ultiiuate cause of justice aad avoids further litigation the saine should be allowed. There csas- be no strait-jacket formiila for allowing or disatlowiag aii amendinent of pleadiags. Each case depends on fhe factual back ground ofthe case. ((o) If we exanune the present inatter ia the back ground of the above law, it would appear fhat the dispossession as sought to be pleaded by the plainfiffs is a subsequent event to the fiUag of the suit. In a suit for a declaration of title aad permaaent iajunction, if ttie plaintiffs are dispossessed durm^ the pendency of the suit after coininenceinent of the trial and they shaU not be aUowed to incorporate the ainendinent in the pleading aad to claim fhe reUef of possession aJso, then it would certainly not sub-serve the ultmiate cause ofjustice and wiU also not avoid the inultipUcity of the lit^ation which is one c*,-.. (-i'^'.,: of the principles uaderlymg the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. (11) In fhe opirdon of fhis Court, fhe trial Court coiniaitted an error of law by rejecting such application for amendinent of pleadings wliich sub-serves the ends of justice aad is necessary for fixiaUy adjudicating the nghts of thc parties to avoid fhe inultiplicity of Utigations. The action of the Court also goes agauist the provisions of Oider II Riile 2 (1) C.P.C., which indjcate that eveiy suit shaU iaclude the whole of the claim which fhe plaintiff is entitled to inake ia respect of ftie cause of action. Here, if the plaintiffs are not aUowed to inake the clauns ia relation to possession, then, even in case of passing ofdecree in their favour in relation to the declaration of title, they wiU not be able to enjoy the possession of the suit lands unless such claiin is furfher inade and decreed in their favoTu-, (12,) Por the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. The amendinent application filed by the plaintiffs is allowed subject to the costs ofRs.200/-. The plauitifiFs shall uicorporate the amendinent wifhin a period of one inonth froni today after payinent of cost before the trial Court. The trial Court thereafler wiU give opportunity to the defendante to file consequential ainendinent aad dispose of the siut in accordance wifh law. The petition is allowed. /Rao/ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge