t/ ^' (;. I® IN THE H(MI'BfcE HIQH COURT Oy CHHJCTTISGARH ATBIEAa»OR W. P. (22nNo. •5'^Sg /2010 PETITIONERS (Defendcints) ill •*'^1/ O^or^".' ^/T;~X<^?'' ^&^/ ^yyf y/l. Jagdish Prasad, ;S/o. Shri. Banshi Lal, Aged aboiit 47 years, R/o. ViUage Dudga, TahsQ - Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Y2. Lalkilalagedabout42years S/o. Shri Banshi Lal, R/o. Village Dudga, I Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.);:,. :-;:•,.:•, ., /?3. ]|I.<)Kaat^^^^l a^ •,:;.g3Eeai:s,jSj|o;^SKEii;Bahsh.i;ILal,: -•;;? ^, ^ :'K«]8^MaagN^0udga.,'FalisiI - KatgBora,; Distfe. Korba ;;:;;..^,1.^,-,^.G.)'.,-.. ;'.;':^ ^;^^|i^i2jw'::''i':l:^::. ,•: •::' ;; • sil''^;,^^j^^^t^s^>i.aged about 28 years, Wife of Dilip Kumar, E)/o. Shn BarisN Lal, R/o. Village Dudga, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. Korba :(G.G^'•;1\ - .:.'•;.. :^ ^5. Jambai,^^^^^^ A^ ;years, Wd^o. late Janiuaa Prasaff, D/6, Shri Banshi lal ,VfflageDu(}ga, "Ealisil— K^lshora, I>^. K^ "' ,fs& ii ^(?)l o ii« sii^B j.giij N11 ^i: i;ffi!J${i8K''Rlljt)1: aih |!!. 'i;;f Tf=i- I'lii' V •Sif il^ '.,1^,;! :i!i!l![jE:::l ffiillitIiBsii Si"iii:S"i'^T^?^®'• 8.B: Hxm'ble Shri Prashant EtCumiar MisUra Writ PetitkMi (227) No. S?58a0l0 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Jagdish Prasad and others Versus':': : :, Sundar Laland aiiotflier ;.Apt>earance:.,; .,'.•. ^.': -..: .:::-:,.:,.';.:... ••.•1::'. ;:: : . :.•'••• .': '(- ^. ShriJ.R. Venna, ccmnseliorthepetitioners/^^ ^^^^ M^ ]^hra, Paneli£awyerforthg State/'resporideht No.2.^ :1' - :: ..:,;.: :.:1 . •; .1' ",,: , •: ;': . WRTT PETITIONUNDERARSIGEE 227 OP THE : i :'€OBj'STIT(Hffi[0 i©>riNI>IAB'::;;:^ '''W ! a3Rffi ;:(6.1©:^01Q)";;.::.-,:.".':::,, .:;.-•.•, This isapetttipn^ui]^ai|^e^2S7;(|iltl %Q^^ •t>y.th^^fen3ants;m|the;5iHt.,TlieiSagp!ic^ of'ePe/^l^raiyssion.'.sti^^ameBd^.^^vi^^ ,rejec?|^::hyffie.iffljpUgried;oNCT..:.-:,J';,.|:,;^ ::'''.!' -.:.', !;'i^: (2) The plaintipfepimdsnf N®3;lias iffied ~a sffit ifiir tleclSratuai 'aml;|posSesEaon't<ffl:^ ^o^ll2^'|<^ ^fited;'^Mr'/wntt:eff?sta:fe:iS^;:^W''Bi^ WWK 29®^©na ^rea3img^|PlS^lnpuin^?|K}^^^ :-";••:' •'1 .;-"".'^1 ! •-••:'''??^^'-'.;:::^ :^^%;!iS^i5&^ ^^|ilready;®ed;|or'Te(s|Mdiig;|^(}eiEi^:|%M|K3^^ '(3^?!f|%li®rKlthe,:.m!at%^^vas^th|us{:|;fi^^ -I)l,auHti:fi's^:^iBnesses.;tlie1,^^^ ^fiM^Ii^.'^B.'liitt^SBIMIBBIII^^ ::appli^0n;;imdeCTOi^ ^;i®uij^i|oi<3^ E li{:@! iiii ww ^il •i;lil •ii K^ •'•"^. ^;-"^: "--4a& 1 •s^.-^ ^ permission to amend written statemeirt to raise plea of adwrse possession as also for denyihg fhe plamtiff's source of titk and furtfaer to raise a plea tfiatthe suit is barred by limitation. (4) The trial court has rejected tfae applicatipn by bbserving that after insertion ofproviso to Rule 17 ofOrderfiofCPeamehdmentin the pleadihgs cannot be allowed imless the party proppsing the amendment satisfies the court that he could n(rt have raised ths pleadings befere the commencement oftrial inspitejofdue diligence. / (5) Shri' J.R. Verma, leamed courisel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that tfae amendment is necessary ft»r effectivs adjudication of the suit and liiat Ae same should have been allowed byimposmg cost. He woulA suBriutthat ffie trial court^ been liberal wKile considering tlie^prayer for amendment and that the proposed amendment sfaould not faave been refused only on thfi ground ofdelay Leamecicpunsel has relied onjudgment^fSupreme CQyrt in the matter of Pradeep Smghvi and^ ^ Dhankam and others C2004) 13 SGC 432 and Uslia flalasliaheb Swaimand others Vs. IQranAppa^ Swaim^^a^ SCC 602. He would further subn^ !^^ivrandaiio(h^ys.HeeFO^^^ Hon'bleSupi^eCQurthasaUBwedth^pra^E^^am written ;stetemeiit afier th®;;<Nnmen^^ ofi ^tria^ and 'fiiat i tte principle^n whieh^^e amen3ment^^^^^^^^ °RB )'i i;) ^.^ i i 31 i 1 1 I ^ssi' ^n-i.. !m\ l.i"l; i{^-fl;»s ^Sw-^^ '^-.S^i^^S^SsSs-^^^-^ ';>-;''^^ ^ •"-•^V'. • '^i'- '^fSs&^ 8 '''^%s" -^^ ^'- i. '19 y ^^^:,^" ,"y'- -?' ;i • 1 i •'f considered has been laid down in the matter OfUsha Balashaheb Swami and others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swanu and others (supra). (6) In the matter of Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another (2009) 2 SCC 409 the Supreme Court has Keld thus in paragrq?hl9and20: "19. It is the primal duly of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between tiie parties. Onlylifsuch a condition is fulfilled, the ameiidment is to be allowed. However, prciviso appended to Qrder 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts tN power ofth&court It putsanembargo oa exerciseofitsjunSdictiori.Thecourt'sjurisdicticm.ina case df tfais nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is foynd to be existmg, the court vraU Have no junsdictiori at all^ to^ allow the amendment ofthe plaint" "20. In Salem Axlvocate Bar .Associatibn this Gciurt has upheld1fevalidityofthesaidproYiso.Iiianyeyeill,^ie constitutionality of the said provsiori .is not in question before usnor we in tfus app^atare required to go int& tlie said ques^on. EurtHei-niore^^e judgm^ Court does liotsatis^thetestlofjwdiGiata-eview.Itlias not been fcund thatlheleamed tria^Jiyge exeeerf^^ jurisdiction in passmg; the onier impugnetf tiefore it. jlt has also ncrt been^feunidgffi^iainy^e^ committed^it.TKeB^ coritentions iwsed 1befi)Terjtfc If^ on the jufisdietional -issue.^ T3ie 'iinpugned judgmeit||i ^; 161 n i:-hj^"^'^s'^ ?:h^.?l;'H.^:it-:;':t;i IHISCT 1 y; ' ^ i [' :li I1" .i^i ^- therefbre, cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordmgly." \ (7) Ia view of the law laid down by tfie^Supreme Court in the :v: /::'' ; ;:• . :'; matter of VMyabai and others V& PadmS^a^a and^ a^ (siipra) considering in detail the efect and sWeep of the proviso inserted in Rule 17 ofOrder 6 ofCPC, this court shall nowexamine the statement made in the amendment applicatioii. Amiexure P-4 is tfae applicatioti under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC mdved by tiie '{ • :: ;'/ : !. petiticiner. It is mentioned fherein thattihe proposed amendtAent could •\ not be raised because ofclerical error and are necessaryi to bs pteaded, It has also Been stated that Ae defendants were yader impression that the amended pleaBmgs are already^^^^m written statement, ;hbwever when tlrey sngaged a^^^^ n lawyer, it was Sx&inxted to th^ thN tUs P^osed plea<^ are not there in^ fhe vvntteo^stat^enitIt'hSsinot^been^^^m^ a^ica^ri^at mspijte dUe^^ pleadings feefiM^ comtnencemetrt o£thetrial.^^^^ ' < (8) In the matter of^dyabai and o(hers,^\^ airoi^rHon'bleSupTemeCQiu^lias^field:^ of Qrder 6 creates emKargo^ori tilie ?3ujisdicti6n of the^^^ ^ entertain ^; \a|ppliea^ eommeneement oE ®iattmiless-!^ suceess^ly crbsses said^jimsSistioBal^m^ Scst i'i.s iaijjBfi«E43^ ^^.^^:'? ^fliB iiatii ilSi1 .:.,C;3iR --•-^ - '~-^i entitled to exercise the discretion to eonsideT the prayer fbr amendinentinthepleadings. (9) In the preseht ease, the appUGation under Order 6 Rule 1"7 of CPC has nbt made any statement that inspite of diie diligenee fhe amendment could nof have been raised before commencement of tnal.Infactthestatementmadeintheappticationistotheeffecfthat they were aware 6f fee facts an^ w^ .pleadmgs are alrea«lymademtUe writtenstatement and^t^ lawyer engaged by them informed fhem that such pleadings are not there in the written statement:. Tlius, tiie present is ncrt a case where the plaintiffi were preyentedliy^ii^ sUBScieitt canse or tha^ inspit&bf due dilig^ce they could riot teave raised ths pleadings before cbmmencemeirt ofttle trial. (10) Iirjthe opfi^ does not su^'fi^ iany^ e^ discretioiL in yiew ofthebareontamedunderprQviso ta Rute 17 of Order6ofCPC. ~ (11) In the judgment relied by the Ipeti^ iPradeep Smghvi and an^^ (supra) and UshaBal^ahebSwaimaijMofh^ fSwamTandothers|(supra)1:heefiecl^^ 6 fa^?ncA ^een considered and 'fl^ •fU" 1}1 .lil^ iils tSlt^ 'aii:;; £^.£ya?,=I2TT^Pn=c^iad'5E=s=W(ICE£^s:l^£T^^^-r-- - -: - .itSS^--" .-^y" •-£- Suprem& Court in the matter of Vidyabai and ^others Vs. Padmalatha and another is applieable.ih the present case. (12) Consequently, the instantpetrtion failsand is hereby disnussed. Sd//- PrashantKumar Mishra Judge •iK:i ^ia'iifcir'. Tt's'.*?^-"?:.