IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION W7 NO.- 4 I 4a$rMtrg PETITIONER :-1. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AGE 35 YR S/O P'a’tm‘h?P :_ S.D. GUPTA, RESIDENT OF BUS STAND, AMBIKAPUR, DISTT.- SARGUJA (C.G.) 2. BHOLA SINGH AGE 44 YRS, S/O VASUDEO SINGH, RESIDENT« OF KHAPARGANJ, BILASPUR, DISTRICT - BILASPUR (C.G.) 3. SURESH SAHU AGE 31 YRS. S/O GOPAL SAHU, RESIDENT ,OF SHYAM NAGAR, LINGIYADIH, BILASPUR, TAHSIL & DISTRICT — BILASPUR C.G. Vrs. RESPONDENTS :-l. H'EEWWW De'peaauh H. s m m RESIEW QF w” SE (DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 9m 28—6-06) sw- 1A. FIRTEEN BAI W/o HEERA KUMAR AGE U‘ 38 YRS. 3113. BHANU PRATAP KURRE AGE 17 YRs., MINOR SON HEERA KUMAR .0 1C. BHISHM PRATAP AGE 17 YRS., MINOR SON HEERA KUMAR x 1D. BHAWANI PRATAP KURRE AGE 15 YRS., I MINOR SON HEERA KUM KUMARI GUNJLATA KURRE AGE 9 " YRS., MINOR DAUGHTER HEERA KUMAR 1F KUMARI SNEHLATA KURRE AGE 7 YRS., MINOR DAUGHTER HEERA REMAR MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN & NATURAL MOTHER FIRTEEN BAI W/O HEERA KUMAR,’ RESIDENT OF \wR r a??” S. AR ‘ ? CHILHATI, TAH. DISTRICT -BILASPUR C.G. SMT. GULABA BAI AGE 69 YRS. D/O LATE JHADURAM KURRE, CASTE- SATMANI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAPIYA KHARSIYA, DISTRICT - JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) SMT. HARA BAI AGE 58 YRS; D/O LATE JHADURAM KURRE, CASTE SATMANI, SMT. MONGARA BAI AGE 48 YRS. D/O LATE JHADURAM KURRE, CASTE SATMANI, NO.- 3 & 4 BOTH RESIDENT VILLAGE MASTURI, TAHSIL - MASTURI, DISTT.- BILASPUR C.G. GULAB SINGH KURRE AGE 45 YRS. S/O JHADURAM KURRE, CASTE SATMANI CHHOTE KUMAR KURRE AGE 35 YRS. S/O JHADURAM KURRE, CASTE SATMANI ASHOK KUMAR KURRE AGE 30 YRS. S/O DILHARAN KURRE, CASTE SATMANI, CHHOTELAL KURRE AGE 71 YRS. S/O JHADURAM KURRE, CASTE SATMANI, NO.- 5 TO 8 ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHILHATI, TAHSIL & DISTRICT - BILASPUR C.G. C.G. GOVERNMENT THROUGH COLLECTOR BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER SECTION 227 OF m}: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA N K \\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singie Bench: Ho’ble Shri Justice Prashan K hra umar Mis n t Writ Petition {227} No.4437 of 2008 Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counset for the petitioners. Shri Shri Sumit Rajeev Verma, Bharat, Panel counsei Lawyer for respondents for‘the State/respondent No.1A to 1F and No.9. 3 to 8; Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitutioh of india QRAL ORD§R (Passed on January, 2010) Heard finally. 2. The order dated 23-7-2008 (Annexure P-1) under chaiienge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india has been passed by the 3'd'Additionai District Judge, Biiaspur in Civil Suit No.32- A/200? on an application under Order 6 Rule 17Vof the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. Admittedly, on the date when the application for amendment of the plaint was submitted, the trial had already commenced as some of the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs were already cross-examined and some witnesses were remaining to be cross-examined. 3. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the teamed trial Court ought to have exercised the discretion of allowing Petitioners Manoj Kumar Gupta and Respondents Firteen Bai and others “ % the application for amendment of the plaint even when the trial had already commenced, inasmuch as, according to him, the petitioners/piaintiffs could not move the application earlier in spite of due diligence. 4. Shri Rajeev Bharat, learned counsel for respondents No.1A to 1F and 3 to 8 has opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that in his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners/plaintiffs have not stated any word about their bona fides and due diligence. 5. On perusal of the amendment application, it appears that the submission made by learned counsel for respondents No.1A to 1F and 3 to 8 appears to be convincing. ln Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another, 2009 AIR SCW 899, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that the application for amendment of pleadings made by the parties after commencement of trial should ordinarily not be allowed unless the parties are able to demonstrate that they were in any manner prevented from tiling the application in spite of due diligence. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no error of jurisdiction committed by the trial Court in rejecting the petitioners/plaintiffs' application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. 6. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra x Judge Gopal it \i