$£ EE 'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR (C.G.) 22? V- . rw.P %<Z>Q 'nrTar—bahar, Bilaspur, Tahsii & - District Bilaspur (C.G.). ‘3. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.). 'WRIT- PETITION UNDER ARTICLE >227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950. §§§££ MH ‘PETITIONE_R/ Bharat‘Lal, aged about 56 years, Plaintiff . S/o. Bhikhari Satnami, resident of ' Village~ Rampur,' Tahsil' Mungeli, V H; ' i' u ,V District ’Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ 1.. Snehil Singh, aged about 28 years, Defendants 5. I . . .S/o. Santosh Kumar Singh, Tar- bahar, Near ' Primary School, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Uttara Kumar alias Vijaya Kumar, aged about 37 years, S/o. Bharat . La! Satnami, Near Primary Schoo‘l, <4? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR W.P. (227) NO. 880 OF 2011 WRH’ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Sinqle Bench: Hon‘ble Shri N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : ShriMD‘Sharma,counselfcrthe‘ petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed 0n 8‘“ day of March, 2011) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 15- 07-2010 passed by Civil Judge, Class—I, Mungeii, District Bilaspur in Civii Suit No.10—A/2007 whereby the petitioner’s appiication under Order 6 Ruie 17 of Code of Civii Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’) was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as under: Plaintiff instituted a suit claiming relief of deciaration on the ground: the suit property is joint famiiy property and defendant No. 2 has no right to transfer it in any manner to defendant No.1. Plaintiff’s evidence was closed. Thereafter, he moved an application for amendment of plaint. The same was dismissed by the Trial Court. 3. l have heard learned counsei for the petitioner. 4. The Supreme Court in case of Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another; reported in 2OOQ (2) SCC 409 has observed in para 1‘9 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 PETI’HONER : BharatLaI (PLA!NT£FF) Versus RESPONDENTS/ : Snehil Singh and others. (DEFENDANTS) parties. Only if such a condition is fuifiiied, the amendment is to be allowed However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the Court. lt 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 amendment of the plaint". 5. 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 petitioner has not assigned any reason whatsoever why he could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial? 6. in View of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial 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 India. 7. it is well settied principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, shculd refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court beiow, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity orjurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismiss/e .x, " / /'" Sdl- N_K. Agrawa‘ Judge