IN TEE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATTJRE AT BILASFUR CHHATTISGARH w.P. N0. ‘22. $ /2005 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLEQQQZ7 OF THE ‘ ‘6' ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INfmx PETITIONER : / Premchand Agrawal, Aged about 50 years, S/o. Chandagi Ram Agrawal R/o Seth giiggaécggad, Tahsix Ambiéapurf Disttéwyyk f Ekz VERSUS .>.u, RESPONDENT: / Narendra Kumar Verma, 5/0. Iainath Prasad,‘ x g , Aged about 46 years, R/o. Ramanujganj Road g (High School Road),Ambikapur, PS. & Tahsil ’ Ambikapur, Distt’ Surguja (C.G.) W 8.3: ‘*"\ Hon’ble Shn‘ Prashant Kumar Mishra N 3MP. No. 2263/2005 Premchand Agrawal ' ’ Versus Narendra Kumar Verma Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushi! Dubey, counsel for the respondcnt. PETITIONER K RESPONDENT Aggaarance: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE \ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (I 9.1 0.201 0) court rejecting his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for leave to amend the plaint. (2) The petitioner/plaintiff preferred the suit for the \QW/ ZP observing that there is no pleading in the plaint seeking eiction of the defendant on the ground of disclaimer oftitle. (3) The petitioner thereafter moved the subject application nder Order 6 Rule 17' of CPC in the month of March 2005 inter alia submitting that in para l, 4, 7 and 12 of te witten statement the defendant has denied the plaintiE’s title to the suit premises and herefore it has become necessary for the plaintiff to amend th plaint t e to introduce para 8—A therein to plead that the plaintiff is also entitled to seek eviction of the defendant on the ground of disclaimer of title. The trial court has rejected the prayer for amendment in the plaint. (4) . Shri Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the trial court has committed material irregularity in xercise of jurisdiction by rejecting application for amendment in the plaint which was based on events occurring after filing of the suit. He ould submit that the rial court was not correct in saying that there is no denial of title in the written statement. (5) Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that in View of proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC an amendment cannot be allowed after commencement of trial and since in the present case the trial was dixed for recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial court was jfully justified in rejecting the petitioner’s/plaintiffs application for iamendment in the plaint. ‘1 r v u h r e w t ’W) (6) In the matter of Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another (2009) 2 SCC 409 the Supreme Coult has held that the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of CPC creates an embargo on exercise of jurisdiction to grant an amendment after the trial has commenced and that an amendment cannot be allowed unless the plaintiff succeeds in demonstrating that he could not have raised the pleadings made in the proposed amendment before commencement of the trial inpsite of due diligence. . ’\\ (7) In the present case the proposed amendment is to incorporate a new ground of eviction which has occasioned aher filing of the written statement by the defendant, thus, undisputedly the subject matter of the proposed amendment could not have been pleaded by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. (8) In the matter of M/s. Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. M/s. Narayanaswamy and Sons and 01's. 2009fAIR SCW 6644 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principles as to when an amendment in the pleadings can be considered and granted. Thus, it is settled law that an amendment in the pleadings can be allowed when the proposed amendment is necessary for complete and v effective adjudication of the suit, it does not change the nature of the t lsuit, l the party is not withdrawing an admission already made in the pleading or that the proposed amendment is not malafide or is not . raising any plea which is barred by limitation. l “WK (9) In the present case, the plaintiff is only seeking to raise an additional ground of eviction and thus neither the nature of relief claimed in the suit is changed nor it will cause prejudice to the defendant. ( 10) In the opinion of this couit, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the prayer for amendment in the plaint which has been necessitated after tiling of the written statement. The question whether the pleadings made in the written statement would or would not ultimately constitute a ground for eviction on the ground of denial of title is to be determined in the suit. The trial court has also committed an error by examining the merits of the amendment while observing that the defendaiit has not denied the title of the plaintiff (1 1) In View of the above discussion, this court would hold that the trial court has committed material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction while rejecting the plaintiff’s prayer under Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC. (l2) In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Plaintiff’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC stands allowed. ( l3) NO order as to cost. i #P Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge