£) B^^^ A^'i '.:K Cs's5- ":IS IN THE HIGH COURT OF'JUDiCATUREAT BILASPUR ICHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (227) N0. ^ " /2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PETITIONER (PLAINTIFF) Arun Kumar, S/o Guru Prasad Tamrakar, Aged about 40 years, R/o Simga, P.H.No. 14, Tahsil Simga, DistrictRaipur (CG.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS) .^^ <>w 's'..-" ^Q^-- f^y 1. Gulam Das, S/o Shri Najir Ahmad, R/o Simga, P.H.No. 14, Tahsil Simga, District Raipur (CG.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Collector, Raipur (CG. T 30 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 243 of2011 PETmONER Plaintlff RESPONDENTS Defendants Arun Kumar Versus Gulam Das & another WRIT PFHTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTMTION OF INDIA fSBi Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present sShri.Sanjay S Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17.01.2011) 1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 13,12.2010, passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Simga, in Civit Suit No, 24-A/08, whereby the petitloner's application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dlsmissed, 2. Brief facts of the case jn nutshelt are that : the plaintlff instituted a suit against the respondent No, l also arraying the respondent No. 2/State of Chhattisgarh as a formal party In the suit, admitting the respondenfs tltle over the sult land and claiming title on the basis of adverse possession. Later on, by way of amendment, the petitioner wanted to amend his plaint on the ground that the defendant/respondent No. l has no title over the suit 31 land since Patta granted in his favour is void ab-lnitio and he has no right to interfere in his possession. 3. The trial court held both the prayers are destructive to each other and consequently dlsmissed the apptication. 4. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearlng for the petittoner would eontend that it is wetl settled law that whlle entertaining the amendmentapplication the court should not take into consideration ttie merits of the matter and the court below after entering Into the merfts of the matter, dismlssed the amendment appliGation which is illegal and deserves to be set aslde. 5. Having heard the counsel appearing f©rthe petitioner and having perused the order impugned, copy of ptalntand amendment application, I am of the considered opinipn that trial court has not committed any illegaiity warranting interference of this court under Artlcle 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The instant suit is filed by the petitioner for declaratlonof title and injunction based on adverse possession against the defendant/respondent No. 1. Now, by way of amendment applicatlon, the petitioner wants to amend his pleadings that the defendant has no tttle ov®rthe suft as Patta granted in his favour is void ab-fnitio and consequently he has no right to interfere in his ^ possession. Therefore, on one hand, petltloner sought /^.^ E, f Sahu dectaration to the effect that petitioner is tn adverse possession of the suit land agalnst the defendant No.l, and on the other hand, by way of amendment application he wants to challenge the title of the defendant No. 1. Amendments, in order to change constitutionally & fundamentally the nature of the suit, and/or to add pleadlngs/prayers which are destnictiye/contrary to the existing pleadlngs, should not be allowed and the trial court, in its discretion, has rightly dismissed the amendment applicatlon. 7. It is well settled principie of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervfsory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from tnterfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity; illegality, irregularity or jurisdlctlonal error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case, 8. The petltion has no merit and the same |s accordingly dismiaed in limlne, Sd//- ' N.K.Agrawal Judge