IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Ajeet Kumar Punj s70 Late Shri} Amichand Punj, aged about 5‘? years, w R/o Main Road, Bagbahara, Tahsil District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarm VERSUS Satpal Punj s/o Late Shri Amiehand Punj, aged about 67 years. Kamal Punj s/o Late Shn‘ Amichand Punj, aged about 46 years. Both R/o ward No. 5, Bagbahara, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). Mohammed Firoj Meman, aged about 38 years, S/o Abdul Rajjak Meman, R/o ward No. 7 Post 85 Police Station Bagbahara, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). Smt. Anita Shanna, aged about 35 years, D/o Late Shri Chaman Lal Shanna, W/o Kamal Punj, R/o ward No. 5, Post and Police Station Bagbahara, Tahsil and District: Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). Yogesh Gandecha, aged about 4O years, s/o Late Chhagan Lal Gandecha, Gujrati, R/o Ward No. 5, Post & Police Station Bagbahara, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund ,(C. G.). Milan Patel, aged about 26 years, s/o Late Jamman Patel. Smt. Suketa Patel, aged about 25 years, w/o Gin‘sh Patel, Respondent No. 7 & 8 R/o ward No.5, Post 85 Police Station Bagbahara, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) . WRIT pETI'rION (2271 No. g ]%% or 2009 Slmgla Beach 1. , 9. L“) Sunil Agrawal aged about 34 years, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.). s/0 Ramdhari 7 Bagbahara, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Agrawa], R/o Ward No. /_/— / ,. does not change the nature of the suit nor any fresh re\ief is 5ought and therefore, the leamed tria! Court ought to have attowed the prayer. (4) Shrt Sourabh Shanna, teamed counsel for the petitioner has ptaoed rettance on judgments of Hon’bte Supreme Court reported in 12003) 6 SCC 1PgJ9}, (2009! 2 SCC, iPg 409}, 2008 AIR SCW 3225 2009 AIR SCW 6644 and 2009AtR SCW 6131. The ret‘tance on these judgments have been made onty to strengthen his statement that in the amendment which is ctarificatory ought to have been attowed by the triai Court and more so when it does not change the nature of the suit and that the opposite party witi not be preiudiced by the said amendment. (5) Per contra, Shri Mano} Paranipe, learned counsel for the respondents have relied on 3udgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai & Ors, Vs. Padmalatha &Anr. and by referring to para 8, 13,14 and 15 of the said iudgment he has put forth that the order passed by the teamed trial Court is perfectly in accordance with the principles of law and the amendment application has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. (6) l have heard learned counsel for the parties. The amendment sought to be incorporated in the application is to the foilowing effect. 1. as%mewa§a%tms"ar”$treamas W5*’a”%m§m3§m&ia§m€r Wattmr 5,?” ”astersoErardta-aataeimmm 9w‘3mmxa%§eharéa$amm 17% We‘dmmhamdt ri®5§raii5 29.11.2005 Wammmum)aammasaea mahméa§ami§ta%astre97ta—auhae%amaé) mmmwmmm§mwh£rm x Mmrasaasswasrtamaa’rmr ‘Wmrama®a&e§$wm€sm masiamwmqdmmw%im imam oar isatéa 29.}r.2oo5 We some 2% safe ofa)§em§hed%m%whwa§hm%m smmmatesaeemuaewew i m. Mam.“ aamw§§$§w§kw :E: mm mwmmw awgm fd: WEN“? «qg mwMam $3WM3 gv mmw ig gmwmaw. IzHMEwmqmw$§w§w§ gmmawm aowdwmm §§ E§§§§a% awddg$w§mwm§§$wmgwwd mwmwwmw awwiw .z ¢u£z Qmaawgmmmw$£mwm£§wim§ .. :Hw ma g 3.am;www a mwq m$m£$§vmwiguwgg§ g awa dwm..&. a QNMM a u%a mm‘ig g §§§Vmwaamw$~ai§$a wmmwmmgmmwgmwamamEga? :w%$3wmmmmw*qwu$§ mggaamw§§w% g wm. 3.2“? mg gv. gavhgmg awxm Ammag£3 i$g§a§§§§§§§ $mdm§ mgmiw gig wqtlwmwum g awxw mwgmwma$pqmmm~wwm§ng§§mwd :;o;wmn §%§@%v§w §armw§w3 www~wmmmvmwxmw§ §$§$iawg w§&§3u&m§%w a§§£§§§ magy ww2nm§§mmmy g ggnEvm$¢mwqumEnwga~w ‘ §§§m$£w$wmwd£§w§a§ E§%%%‘§£%§I§% mwgw.§m$gm&dmmm§$§v‘ $WMm$mwmwmn§m§gaWuMmimw¢m¥§ §g$§i .wq. g$ mgv mm wudammmEwogwmwavwm Qmwqmamwwwhwaaaaw? L M Ad .326: 3m mmaEonomma mamsnamam .wQmq§o§o .5 $5 \ / ac”amqaqmmxmawmin 2:33:02czamq oamq m m _w3 a $.30; 3mm / KbmnmmmmQ 3 cw mwgmama wm 8 £3m§mq :5 mmEacawawaso: ow: am ///mxmqo¢mma m"”:mm‘wam2 Em mcg£ €332aoé FmE‘am. EawmvEmvi § € 5 x ' /, '2 issues were framed by the trial Court on 05.05.2009 and fixed for recording evidence of the parties. {8) in the application filed under order 6 Rme 17 of the C.P.C., the plaintiff has not stated anything about the delay in moving the appiication or explanation for not being able to bring the facts at the time of tiling of the suit or soon thereafter and that in spite of due diligence he was prevented from bringing the facts in the plaint. lt is also not stated that the amendments are on the basis of any subsequent events. {9) Learned trial Court has found that the entire facts with reference to the sate deed dated 29.11.2005 has already been pleaded by the plaintiff and that he has moved several applications for amendment on the earlier date and yet it has not been stated by him as to why the present amendment could not be brought at the earlier point of time. (10) in AIR 2009 scw 6644 as well as in (2009) Vol.2 scc 409 Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmaiatha &Anr it has been iaid down that the primary consideration tor exercise of jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 1? of the C.P.C. is to decide as to whether the amendments would be necessary to determine the real questiinn of the controversy between the parties and that since the proviso appended under Order 6 Rute 17 of the CPO, restricts the power of the Courts, it puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court’s jurisdiction in a case of this , nature is limited. Thus, unless this jurisdictional facts as envisaged therein is found to be enisting, the Court below’has no jurisdiction to attow the amendments of the plaint. (1 1) When the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court is applied in the facts of the present case, it is found that the plaintiff has not stated any word about the exercise of due diligence to bring the amendment and its inability to make amendments, which is not based on thesubsequent event, before framing of the issues. lt is also found that the amendment is not necessary for—adiudication of the suit. Lit 2) lnthe opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any terror of jurisdiction in rejecting the prayer under Order 6 Rule 1? of the e0 ,I’ éxercisa of pewer under Anicle 227 af petition fails and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 81m