^ WSS COUKT QF CHIiMTISGARH ATJBILASPUR SB : HON'BLB SHRX JUSTICB PKITINKER DIWAKER W.P. N0. (2271 2363/2008 PBTITIONBRS/ PLAINTIFFS 3. 4. 6. Hajiyaui \V/o. Haji Saida Jamal, Mohammad Jamaluddia, aged about 55 years, R/o, Opposite Raipur Bekri, Madarsa Road, Baijnathpara, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) Hamida Begam, D/o. Haji Abdul Rahiia, aged about 54 years, R/o. Saniay Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Aanma Begam., W/o. Sabbir Kuraishi, aged about 53 years, R/o. Laxmi Nagar, Beside Marbal Liiie, Ring Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Hajiyaai Aausa Begaiu, W/o. Ur.4^ AT<.^>n^-,t1 Un^. --i.fvn^ f->'^/>->-»+ ilcyj. 2~u-io«aj.i.LLi, iid.*wj[, ct^i-u. (a.ikj^Li.L 52 years, R/o. Agriculture Colony, Bilaspur (CG) Farida Khaa, W/o. Talait d about TTia<->t^? J\/CU.i3, R/o. Swam Jayauti Nagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur (CG) Wahida Begum, W/o. Dr. Taaveer Ahiaad, aged about 48 years, R/o. Moiniupura, Ainbikapur, Distt. Siuyija (CG) AU are r/o/. C/o. Hariyaai Saeda Jamal Madarsa Road, Opposite Raipur Bekri, Baijnathpara, Raipur, Distt, Raipur (CG) RESPONDENT8 yersus 1. Municipal Corporation Raipur, Througb. Coniinissioner, ..f- .4' ^ ^.—•'^/' 'c'"--:ifff<t"~ ^ -2-- Municipal Corporation, Malviya N^ar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. Court ofAppeaUya Committee, Municipal CorporatioD. Raipur, Municipal Corporation BuUdmg, Malviya Rosui, Raipur (CG) 3. Abdul Naim, S/o. Haji Abdul Rahiin, aged about 54 years, Occupation Unexaploycd, R/o. Ahmadji Colony, Maulaaa Abdul Rauf Ward, Raipiir, Distt. Raipur (CG) 4. Abdul Kayuin, S/o. Haji Abdul Rahica, aged about 52 yeare, Occupation Uneinployed, R/o. Ahinadji Colony, Maulana Abdul Rauf Ward, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 5. Abdul Karim S/o. Abdiil Rahim, ^ed about 49 years, occupatiou Unciuployed, R/o. Ahinadji Colony, Maulaaa Abdul Rauf Ward, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTITXmON OF INDIA Appearaace: Shri Aiul Pandey, counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri Saajay K.Agrawal, couasel for respondents No. 1 fli,2. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, counsel for respondents No. 3, 4&5. ORALQRDER (20.04.2009) The petitioners/plaintiffs have assailed the order dated 5.3.2008 passed by the 13th CivU Judge Class II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 61 A/2008, by which, tfae '.^..... ^^^.^•i •s- ^ appUcation ffled by th.e plaintiffs under Order 6 Riile 17 of the Code of CivU Procedure has been disinfased. The contennon of the petitioners is fhat on 18.08.2006, fhey have filed a suit for declaration and permanent iajunction prayiag that the order passed by the m.unlcipal aufhorities in the revenue case be declared nun aud void as fhe same is wifh.out jurisdiction aud agaiust the principles of natural justice. Accordiug to fhe plaiatiffs, if fhe order is aUowed, fhey would be depnved froin fheir aucesteal property. It has also been prayed by the plaiatiff that the defendaitts be restramed from alienatiag fhe suit property iu aay laaimer or even changing the nature of fhe same. Subsequent to fhe fiMng of siiit, fhe plaintiffs bave filed aa appUcation iinder Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendinent ia fhe plamt. In this application, it has been submitted by the plamtifis that after examining the matter miuutely it has become necessary for fheia to ameud fbe plaint. The plamtiffs have prayed the foUowiag amendinent in para 12 : 12-12 (a) V? fe uR!c|l<i1 VW 3,4 W 5 ^ C|I<D'|U| ^ ftdT SI^rsregpT •^q ^t araWRTT cCT cTTO ^3!?F ^; 's^t sit^ 'f(' 'TO?;'? cpq<;l{^<»> W !Sul!tl<1! f^ticp 31/1/2000 ^ '^RT W7 R»<tRd ww ^m arr ?CT q^t 'OT^ yi^Ri* ^ni'oBi't'i^ ^ qf^cr ?^r ^t •iari^RT •'raqi? 'gqa R'I'IWI ^ aiHR T'? ^PR 1?fro wiy ^ gpFt 'qn T? •iwirf<"i ^iEipn tl ^w (BqMmi 'unoft gw ^RR) fifp! ^ Ru^lri St^ ^ ?»RTT r SRSS' w ^r ct>'!"f1i< t ftRt C[R Tf^ f( ^.ftcft •^ •l^ t| cll^l"! ^W ^T.TFff cgT 1S|®rRR% 'i34q|p^Rf ?^ ^ 'ef>RUT gi^T q?^t] The plamtiffs have furfher prayed for amendment ia para 16 in fhe foUowiag inanner: ^'•m. &. '""l,- —-1- 18- (3f)q? ^B MRc||<ft ^Trfai 3,4 Ti? 5 ^ 'CTf^RT ?^ TjrW siuft ai^sr ^n ^r toro 31/1/2000 W f^. TSW q^1pw qif 'TERT tor TPIT aaff ^<RT B^i^^i yjr gRsm r ^ Qirfter t ^ snEirc yro?? WV TrfSfa; f?mn tpiy ^ 31^ '•Wtl W -1!<1M'<U! 't>'<d|<)l t afl? d|<^'!"j air wi^ Pl'dtit"! gqi ^ qf^RT W7 fen t $<lRiy 'g'ST fSejHI.4! *4<i4^'*1 'is'-^Rld W UI^Rl* ;5 T ^ f^T;?RT ?^ ^ ^WT ^? V^ U'll|c|^'1 BtfS?f f^Tf snii & In the prayer cteuse also, fhe plainTiffs have prayed for fhe followine iclief: 20-1 (a») vs fSs yf?icii(fi<]ui 3^4 -^cT 5 BT.;! c^ri^il^i qi7 1^TR5 31.1.2000 3'T '^5 SPgg -^n sfT !g^M|til 7rar t s? Rdi-iwi 1qR?n %f; ^s fi'tw^ sq; •<^ qf^Rf Wf vIT^ q5t TnfSm ^ aTIBT'r W U!<^R|* ••2IT!T ^ R4'i1d <feri<Rltl <i'W!^"j t 1uR?^ qi<?!-""l *)'j'1'ft ^Sfffy' t!TC)'(t|Sl*!'< ^S q%tf ^f€f teff w 7R5crr t s^iRn1 'gai-r IS^I-IWI ^S f fs^ T3 ^T alftgr ISsn ufl^ (isir •gqg artsr <;'wic|u< c^ snEiff iT>!' 'TTRg an^r ^r f?R^r M' ^ff^ ^S siii"iima> Fs'alyt.i'f ^t sn^ri Coutentmn of leamed counsel for fhe petitioaers is that the pleadings in respect of forged gift have already been niade in the plaint aad by way of amendment, the plauutiffs want to elaborate fhe said pleadiags and want that fhe gtft itself be declared foi^ed. According to him, no harm would be caused to fhe defendaats, even if the said amendment is aUowed because ultimately it wouM be for the Court to decide the issue and fhe Court may or may not grant fhe relief as sought for by fhe plaiatiflTby way of amendment. He further submits that even the issues have not been fi-amed aad therefore also, the amendinent caa be aUowed aad fhe parties wouU be at Uberty to lead evidence. »>., ;fe.,- ,'' jf. ^~;,... s ^y , v^ a -T- On fhe ofher hand, supportiag the otder, learaed couasel appearmg for the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 submits that fhe gift caanot be chaUenged by way of amendiaent because fhe right bas already been accrued in favour of respondents No. 3,4 & 5 and this ligbt cannot be taken away. He has further drawn the attention of fhis Court on the proceediags drasvn between the parties before fhe reveuue authorities and accordiag to which, fhe existence of gift was weU within the knowledge of the plaintiffat the time nffiling the siut itselfrather it was withia their knowledge ia the year 2000 itself aad fherefore, the pleadings of this &ct could have been inade at the tuue offiliag the suit Shri Saxyay Agrawal, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 also supports the order impugned. I have heard counsel for the respective parties. Undisputedly, the suit has been ffled on 18.8.2006 and fhe amendinent appUcation was filed on 10.04.2007 aud tiU date the issues have not been fiamed. It may be true that ttie existence of gift was wifhin fhe knowledge of fhe petitioners at the tune of filing tbe suit aud ttie saine was not challenged. If such facts are brought on record aad the validity of fhe gift itself is chaUenged, no harm is going to cause to fhe parties. By atlowiag fhe amendment does not tueau that the rdief as claiuied by ttie plaintiffs is being granted. The issues are yet to be fl~amed. The parties are yet to file their affidavit aad adduce evidence and ttierefore, it woiild depend upon the evidence as to whether fhe amendm.ent as sougbt would be converted iato relief or not. Moreover, the plamtiff has ah-eady pteaded about the foi^ed will and is making clarification ni fhat respect. Furfhermore, whetih.er the claim of fhe petitioners would be barred by lunitation on fhe date o.f filing of the -&• appUcation is a disputed question of fact aad that caa be appropriately decided by the Court after adduciag evidence by the parties. ReUance is placed upon the decision ofthe Apex Court in AIR SCW 422, South Konkau Distilleries & Axir. Vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Others, wtuch reads as under: 10. From the above, fherefore, one of ffae cardinal principles of law aUowiag or rejectm.g an appUcation for amendmient of fhe pleading is that the coiuts generaBy, as a rule, decliae to aUow amendincnts, if a fi-esh suit on ffae amended claim would be barred by luaitation on the date offiling ofthe appUcation. But that would be a factor to be taken into account in fhe exercise of the discretion as to whefher fhe amendment shozild be ordered, aad does not affect the power of ftie Court to order it, if fhat is required iu fhe iaterest of justice. In Rcigu Ttulak D.John. Vs. S.Rayappcm. & Others {2001 92) SCC 472J, fhis Court also observed fhat where the amendment was barred by tune or not, was a disputed questiou of fact aad fhereforc, that prayer for amendment could not be rejected and ia. fhat circuinstaaces fhe issue of lunitation caa be saade an issue in the suit itself. In a decision in Vishwambhar & Others Vs. Lcwrmnarayan (Dead) through LRs. & Anr. i(3001) 6 SCC 163], this Court held ftiat fhe auiendment though properly made carmot relate back to fhe date of fiUng of the suit, but to fhe date of fllmg of the appUcation. Again in Vineet Kumar Vs. Mangal Sain Wadhera (AIR 1985 SC 817} this Court held tfaat if a prayer for ainendiaent merety adds to facts already ou record, fhe am.endmcnt would be aU.owed even afiter statutory period ofUmitation. In view of the above judgment and the provisions of law, this Court is of fhe view fhat the order impugned cannot be aUowed to sustmn and fhe sam.e is set aside. The amendruent as sought by the plaintiffs vide fheir application dated 10.04.2007 is aUowed. The plamtiffs will iucorporate the said aiaenduient. The defendants wiU bave the right to file consequential amendiuent iu fhe writ petition. Admittedly, ftie suit is pending siace 18.08.2006. The Coiurt will inake every endeavour to decide the suit expeditiousty aad preferably withia a period of six raonths fix>in the date of receipt of this order. It is expccted Iroin the pard.es to cooperate ia ftie earty disposal offtie suit^^-^^— »^°M'k" pn Suguna luA^