_.____:_:J=._=^_= SN TffS HQ BVM OTGff COCRT OF csmATnsGrAKa JUDICATUKB AT BILASPUR W.P.f227JWO/^011 il¥ PBTmQNESt ^>e^^u&^<-^~ < ^"\^^ (,<?..<V""i- r^>.V"'~> :-^%-^ ^^.^ SBsjpom^Ems pla^t-{^ "N-^" ^?-"^ r?7 e^.R.Ka ^\ ^•T^ Dhaniram S/o Tika Ram Aghorvi AgedohQut -65 years Occupation-Agnculture Resident qf Village - Kusmura Tahsil and District Raigarhf C.G.) VERSKS 1. Bhojram S/0 Tikaram Agharia Aged about 55years Occupation Agriculture Resident ofVillage Kzismura, Tahsil 85 District Raigarh (C.G.} 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDBR AMTICI^ 22T OF THS CO^S^TUTIOW OF IATOA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR/^ Writ Petition (227) No. 2810 of2011 PETITIONER Dhaniram yERSUS RESPONDENTS : Bhojram & another fWRTT PETITION UNDER ARTECLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA1 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AsarwaL J.) Present : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13.06.2011) Heard on admission. 1. The instant petition, filed under Article 227 of Constitution ofIndia calls in question the legality and propriety of order dated 05.03.2011, passed by Civil Judge Class I, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 74-A/07, whereby and whereunder petitioner's application filed under Order 6 Rulel7 ofCPC for amendment has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are -: petitioner/defendant moved an application for amendment of his written statement after commencement oftrial without assigning any reasons why he could not have raised the matter before commencement oftrial. The same was rejected by the trial court. Hence this petition. 3. Ms. Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit : amendment of pleadings are permissible even at appellate stage provided aniendment does not work injustice to other party and is necessary for determination ofquestion in controversy. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. Before considering the rival submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to advert Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, which reads as under : (<10rder 6 Rule 17 Ameiidment of pleadiiigs,-The Court may at any stage ofthe proceedmgs allow either party o alter or amend his pleadings in such mamier aiid on such tei-ms as may be just, and all such amendinents shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determinmg the real question in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed afler tiie tt'ial has commenced, uiiless the Court conies to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement oftrial." h^B- 6. In view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 the court's jurisdiction to allow such application is taken away aflter commencement of trial unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement oftrial. 7. The Supreme Court in case of Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another^, has observed in para 19 as under: "19. It is the primal duty ofthe court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to 1 2009 (2) SCC 409 Order 6 Rule 17 oftheCode restricts the power ofthe court. It puts an embargo on exercise ofitsjurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus^ unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction to all to allow the amendment oftheplaint.99 8. The aforesaid proposition of law is binding on this court. By applying the aforesaid proposition of law to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the petitioner has not assigned any reason whatsoever why he could not have raised the matter before the commencement oftrial?. 9. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court has not committed any illegality or irregiilarity in disallowing the above amendment application warranting interference of this court under Article 227 ofthe Constitiition oflndia. 10. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdictron under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itselffrom interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 11. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. ————--- Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Sahu