wff^ \" A" WRST PETiTION jCi No.684 of 2008 idants No. (7 Piaintifl Defendanfs Jf- 1. Laxminarayan, S/o. Suraj Prasad Bani, aged about 47 years, R/o. BodSa, Tahsi! Kawardha, Distt. Kabirciham (CG). 2. Sanjay Kumar S/o. Kasiii Prasad 5. bou! 30 Keshar.rani, Caste Bani, aged ai years, R/'o. Bodia, Tahsil Kawardha, Distt. 3. Raj Kumar S/o. Ramnarayan aged about irs, R.o. iodla, Post BodSa, Tahsil Kav/ardha, Distt. Kabirdham (CG). Mukesh Keshai Caste Banl, ag Chiinahati, :ed about 24 years, R/o. Iha, Distt. 5. Raiesh Kssharwanl, Caste Bani, agsd about 32 years, post Ambikapur, R/'o. Presentiy Tahsil Kawardha.'Distt. Kabirdham <CG). Guiam Murtza age about 52 years,S/o. Gu! Mohhamad, R/o. Udiva Tahsi! spscial power of Attorney, Md. Yusuf Khan, aged about 26 years, S/o. Guiam Murtza, Ri'o. Udiya TahsiS tewardha, Distt. Kabirdham (CG). Md. Hasan S/o. Gulam Mustafa, Aged about 26 years, R/o. near Udayancha! Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG). Juveda Begam, W/o. Gut aged about 55 years, r/o. near Rajnandgaon (CG). ati, sged ><ay oiKflia. about 33 ysars, Motorcycls Mechanic Main Road, Durg, Konda! (Sarabaipur), Tahsii Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker (Bastar). Pan/een Bano, W/o. Akram (Driver) aged about 30 years, Wo. Asiam vyatch House (Sambalpur) Tahsii Bhanupratappur.Disit. iastar). 7. Jarina Bano, W/o. Ayyub aged about 27 years, through Md, Ji Teli Ayyub Devdseya, behind Nayapara, Eiectricity Office Shankar Chowk, Raipur District: Raipur (CG). Anisha Begum aged.about 22 years, Cl sf^ Sin tehind Badi Musk, Baloda-bazar, Distt. Raipur (CG). State ofC.G. throysh Coltector Kabirdham '/";' petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitutlon of India) 1& Bench : Hon'bis Shri Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. Shrl Hemant Gupta,, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sudhir Verma, counsei far the respondent No.1. ahri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lavv/er for the respondt L 'assed on tftls 11th davof Dscember ith the consent nearinQ nn< 1. The petitioners seek fo cha!!enge the tegality and vaiidity of the order dated 3-1-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the lind Civil Judge, Ciass -1, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, in Civil Suit No. 3A.'2CX)6 (Gulam Murtza Vs. Md. Hasan and others), whereby the application filed by the • setitioners/defendants No. 7 to 11 under Order 6 Ruie 17 of ths Code of Civii Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") for amendment in the wrMen ..w.'" statement, was rejected. 2. The brief facts.in nutsheli, as projected by the petitioners, are that the resoondent No.l/Dlaintiff Gulam Murtaza filed a civil suit in the trsai court for decSarafion, partition and possession against the petitaoners and the rsspondents No. 2 to 7 herein. The petitioners in the ^capacity ol ' '-•-"-'::-i'u' =isa-*sn°=c fBieatiii»3f.muiwu-u-. lii [[•' defendants No. 7 to 11 havs filed written ststement bv denvsnn She contentions made by the plaintiff. The petitioners on the advlcs of their counsel filed an appiication before the trial Court requesting that they may be permitted to incorporate some amendment in thelr written statsments. The court below rejected the application by She order dated 3-1-2008. Thus, this petition. 3. Learned counsei appearing for ths petitioners submits that the court beiov, refused the app'ication for amendmsnt in the writ statement of ths Detitioners in a casua! manner without solna into the tactual asoects of the case. Ths amendment sought by the pefjtloners is not changing &i® case anc! the n wi is oniy ?or Tunner ci court beiow' ought to have ailowed the amendment appiication of the petitioners by Imposing cost,:. 1n cass there is any delay in flling ttis 4. Per contra, Searned counse! appearing for the respondent No.1 supported the order passed by the court betow. 5. i have heard learned counsel appearing foi pleadihgs and documents appended thersto. the'parties, psrused the 6. From the order dated 3-1-2008 passed in respect of i.A.No.5, it reveais lion of the defendants No. 7 to rt bei ^^' 11 i.e. petitioners herein oniy on the technicai ground that the application for amendment was not fiied well within the stiputated period. it appears that the iearned trial Judge has not recorded any cogent and sufficient reasons for rejecting the application filed under Order 5 RuSe-17 of the 7 t< 11 The petltioners/defendants No. 7 to 11 have sought amendment ofthewritten .statement and the same wili not change ths nature of the disDute. 7. On perusai of the papers, it appears that thaf amendment in the written statemsnt is not destructive of the averment made therein. The defendant is entitied to take an attemative piea which is not mutuaily destructive of each other {See : Gautam Sarup Vs. Leeia Jetly (2008 (7) 8. In visw of the foregoing and for the reasons mentioned herein above, (Annexure P/1) passed I.A.No.5 is set aside. statement flled by the petition is allowed and the ordsr dated 31-1-2008 by the Civii Judge, Class i, Kawardha, In respect Tl petitioners/defendants under Order 6, Rule 17 of ths CPC. is aiiowsd. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^w- .1.^ -.^.7^'^^^S^^c-^ ^