H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.572 of 2010 PETITIONERSI: 1. Rahual Sharma aged 22 years S/o (Defendants 1 to 3) Rajendra Sharma 2. Ritesh Sharma aged 20 years S/o Rajendra Sharma Both R/o Jabadapara Sarkanda Bilaspur, Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur Versus 1. Smt. Madhu Shrivastava aged 50 yrs D/o RESPONDENTS/: (Plaintiff). Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava W/o Shri Jai Prakash Sharma Rlo D.K.- 3/18 Danish Kunj Kolar Road, Bhopal, Thana Kolar Tah. Huzur, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) Pin Code 462042 2. Smt‘ Panchmati aged 65 years Wd/o Bedram Caste Satnami R/o Gram Shakti, Tah. Shakti Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) 3. Smt. Krishna Shrivastava aged 70 yrs Wd/o Late Rajendra Shrivastava Rlo 116, Harshvardhan Nagar Bhopal, Distt. Bhopal (M.P.) 4. Smt. Meeta Shrivastava aged 45 yrs Dlo Late Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava W/o Shri Rajesh Bisaria R/o Sarverdharm 495/0 Sector Kolar Road, Bhopal Distt‘ Bhopal (M.P.) Pin 462042 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. M r. Anumeh Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.5. Sin'qle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (14—11—2011) . By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 12-1—2010 passed by the 13‘ Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.35A/2008, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 herein under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been allowed. J §L 2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the plaint and the application for amendment in the plaint. 3. The allegations made in the plaint and the alleged amendment application reveal that respondent No.1 herein is not certain whether she is in possession or not. The amendment appiication itself is not clear about possession that too at the stage of evidence. While passing the order impugned, the Court was under obligation to ascertain what is the nature of pleading and the amendment that too at the belated stage of evidence, but the trial Court has not considered aforesaid ground at the time of allowing the amendment application and thereby committed illegality. 4. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order dated 12—1-2010 passed by the 15‘ Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.35A/2008 is hereby quashed to the extent indicated. However, respondent No.1 herein is at liberty to file specific amendment application showing the ground for not filing the same previously and if the application for amendment is filed, the Court is at liberty to decide the same without being influenced by this order and the previous order passed by the Court. No order as to costs. 5. l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. T. . Soma