mmEHIGHCOURTOFCHHAmsGARHATBILAsPUR Sin9le BenCh W.P. (227) Néb52/30H IN THE MATTER OF: PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF x’ Smf. Shanfi Bai Sonwone, W/o Shri Shrirom Sonwane, . Through her power of Attorney Holder 3\\“}\ \ . (§\ ...... H § . Aged Namely obouf Shri Shrirom 62 yeors, Sonwone, $ WA} MA R/o Jholop, Posf- Jholop, ' Police Sfofion— Pifhoro, ' «59“ ‘ '3’ “W.“ - ’ Disfricf— Mohasomund, ChhoHisgorh VERSUS RESPONDENTS NO.1/ DEFENDANT NO.1 "RSoipur Development Aufhorify, Through Chief Executive Officer, Office Bojrong Market, G.E‘ Rood, Roipur, Chhottisgorh V’Dr. GP. Sorno, S/o Shri Prohotod Some, Aged obout 50 years, R/o Life Line Hospital, Kotoro Tolob Rood, Mother Tereso Word, Roipur, Chhottisgdrh RESPONDENT NO.2/ DEFENDANT NO.2 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3’1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT B!M3WR Writ Petition (227) No. 3552 of 2011 (wRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE @NSTITUTION OF INDIA} (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aqarwal, J,) (L Present : Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocahe for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER . (Passed on 06.07.201 1) ,1 The instant petition filed under Articie 227 of the Constitution of, India calls in question the legality and propriety of orderj dated 25.04.2011, passed by the Xllth Civil Judge Class ll, ; Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 70—AI09, whereby the petitioner’s/plaintiff’s application for amendment med under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed. i 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. Defendant No. 2, by filing his written statement raised specilic plea that heis in possession of the suit property and not the plaintiff/petitioner. No eftorts ‘ have been made by the petitioner slnce then for amendment i of plaint or for seeking appropriate relief. Both the parties led their evidences. Even the defendant No. 2 led his evidence . : Smt. Shanti Bai Sonwane VERSUS ‘RESPONDENTS : Raipur Development Authority & Defendants another on 16.09.2009 in which he has specifically stated that he is in possession oi the suit property. Thereafter said application is filed on 24.03.2011 at the stage of hearing oral arguments without showing any reasons for delay. The same has been dismissed by the trial court relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Vidyabei and others v. Padmalethe and another’. Hence this petition. i have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. Before considering the rival submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to advert to the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPO. Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC reads as under : “Order 6 Rule 17 Amendment of pleadings.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party o alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and ail ‘ such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court conies to the conclusion that in. spite of due diligence, the party could not have - raised the matter before the commencement of trial." ‘ 2009 (2) scc 409 . 5. In view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 the court’s jurisdiction toi aiiow such application is taken away after commencement of trial unless the court comes to the conclusion that despite of glue diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The Supreme Court in case of Vidyebei (Supra) has observed , in para 19 as under: “19? 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 parties. Only if such a“ condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to “be allowed“ However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. I E; it puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court’s jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited; Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact. as. envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction to all to allow the j amendment of the plaint.” 7. The aforesaid proposition of law is binding on this court. By applying the aforesaid proposition of law to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the plaintiff/petitioner, has not assigned any‘reason whatsoever why she couid [not have V. raised the matter before the commencement of trial ?._ The facts, which the petitioner wanted to add, was well within her ‘ knowledge since inception. . " j 8. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this court, .the h’iai court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in disallowing the above amendment application warranting _ interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution . of lndia. lt is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of . its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. ‘ of lndia, should refrain itself from interfering with the order N passed by the Court below. except in such oases where. perversity. illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error‘is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in thepresent - case. 10. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sdl- N.K. Agrawal Judge