"^, [Defendants No. 2(A) & (B)] W.P. (227i No. 6836/2011 1. Seeina Bhinde, Wd/o Late Shrikaut Bhinde, Aged about 50 years; 2. Mayur Bhiade, S/o Late SIukant Bhinde, Aged about 24 years, Both R/o Ganj, Near Laxmiaarayaa Mandir, Raigarh, TehsU & District Raigarh (C.G.). Kesponaeats (PlamtifFNo. 1) (PlaintiffNo. 2) (Plaintiff No. 3) 1. Sint. Savita Devi, Wd/o Late Devendra Savariya, Aged about 51 yrs., 2. Yashwaat Savariya, S/o Nauelal Savariya, Aged about 52 years; 3. Jayanti Savariya, D/o Naaelal Savariya, Aged about 50 years; AU R/o Gandhi Gauj, Station Road, Raigarh, Tbe. 8s District Ra^arh (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLB 227 pF~ THB CONSTITUTION^F INDIA, (SB :Hon'bie Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presenti-Shri Adhil Minhaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondents not noticed. (Passedoa 21^11,'2011j 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners bave chaUenged fhe legahty and propriety of the order dated 14/10/2011 passed by 2nd Civfl Judge Class-2, Raigarh ui Civil Suit No. 48-A/2009 whereby appBcation ffled under Order 6 Rule 17 offhe C.P.C. on behalfofthe petitioners for amendinent in written stateaient relating to subsequent events and appUcation ffled under Older 13 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. on behalf of ftie petttioners for requisition of record of civil suit No. 32A/85 have been disinissed. 2. Shri Adhil Minliaj, Advocate for the petitioners is heard . 3. Copy of the plaint, copy of fhe wntten statement and copy of fhe applications filed under Order 6 Rule 17 aud under Order 13 Rule 10 ofthe C.P.C. pemsed. 4. While dismissiag the application under Order 13 Rule 10 of fhe C.P.C. Court below has not coniinitted any iUegality after closiag of ftie evidence of fhe plaintiffs has ffled appUcation for atuendment in Us written stateinent relating to subsequent event but defendants 7. -<&- have not iiientioned in fhetr appUcatlon filed under Order 6 Rule" 17 offhe C.P.C. date, month or year of coinpletion of constn.iction of rented shop and when it was given on rent. Considering ttie aforesaid ground and considering fhe delay in tactic of petitioners tnal Court has disinissed fhe applications. Case of any eviction suit subsequent eveut especiaUy relating to availabiUty alteruate suitable accoianiodation are always treated as relevaat facts in. order to amend subsequent event parties are uader obligation to satisiy when aforesaid accoKuaodatioa was constructed or cam.e into vacant possession of the landlord and when it was given on rent but petitioners have failed to satisfy Uie aforesaid facts in their appUcation. Coasidering fhe aforcsaid circuBastances Court below has disniissed the application ffled under Order 6 Rule 17 of ttie C.P.C. Coasidermg the necessity of pleading to subsequent event especially in fhe eviction suit aforesaid ai&endnient along with aforesaid required description would be necessary. Court below has already taken serious view to avoid adjourrunent, in fhese circuuistances issuance of process to opposite party and observaace of procedural law would onlv be fiitfle exercise. ConsequenUy, petition is disposed of with foltowiag directions ftiat:- if petitioners filed fresh appUcation for amendment relating to subsequent event as claimed by application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of tlie C.P.C. witli detail descriptions about coinpletion of construction of shop aad when it was given on rent to ofher person and if Court satis&ed ftiat it was subsequeat event after filing of fbe written statement and has filed wifhout unreasonable delay then Court shall consider aad pass appropriate order relatmg to subsequent event which may be relevaat for just decision of the case. No order as to costs. Interun application stands disposed of. Certffied copy as per niles. — p-T; T-P. Sharma Judge ^