M HIGH COURT OF CMATTISGARH AT BILASPUR » W.P. (227! NO. 6794 OF 2009 Lakhan Lal and bthers. Versus @ Khemhan Bai and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Singe Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. MJ¢ Present : Shri Dashrath Lal Prajapati, counsel on behalf ' of Shn’ C.K. Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the - State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08th day of April, 2011’ Heard on admission. 2. Instant petition‘calls in question the legality and propriety of theorder dated 13- 10-2009 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class—II, Bilaspur whereby plaintm‘s’ application for amendment has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: Admittedly, after commeglcement of tnal i.e. after closure of plaintiii‘s’ evidence, amendment was sought in the plaint. The same was dismissed by the Trial Court. 4. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. reads as under: “17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the 2 party could not have raised thé matte before the commencement of trial.” 5. The uprem Court i case of Wdyaei an others @ . Padmalatha, n nother; reported in (29’ 2 C v ad a 00 SO 409 has observed in paras 10 and 1 as under: ' \ Se n b d 9 “10. By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 02 (Act 2 of 2002), Parnt inter ali inrted a proviso to rder 6 ule 17 he Cde, which reads as nder: “Provided that no applicau'on for ndment shall be allowed aftr the trial has commenced, unless the ourt cmes to the concusion hat in spite of due diligence, t party could not have rse the matter befe the commencement of trl.” It is couched i mandator form. The Court’s jurisdction to allow such an application is taken way unles he conditions precedent therefor are satisned viz. it must come to a conclusin that in spe of due diligence the parties could not hav raised he matterbefore the commencement of the trial. “19, It is the prmal duty f the cour o decide as to whether such an mendmet is nessary to decide the ral dispute between the parties. Only if ch! a condition is fulfilled, th amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 the Code restricts the wer of the Cou. It put an embargo on exercise of it jurisdiction. _The Court’s risdiction, in a se of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jrisdictiona fact, as envsaged therei, i foun t be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the ndment of he plaint”. r 20 2 liame a se O R of t o u ame e C o l t he aid r or ia n a y i a s t o it e t ” i o t t an ec e su e of po rt s s ju ca ul i n s d o ame t 3 6. The plamtltfs have failed to demonstrate that m splte of due dihgence they could not have rmsed the matter before ihe c0 muencement of tnal By applymg the rauo of lthe judgment of Supreme Court as referred herem above 1n the facts and c1rcumstances of the case I do not mm any megahty or mmmlty ,m the order Impugned warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 7. It is W611 settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should ren'ain itself n‘om interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except 1n such cases where perverstty, lllegality, irregularity or Jurisdictional error 1s wnt large on the face of the record which 1s not 1n the present case. 8. Accoulmgly, the petltion being devmd of substance 1s liable to be and 1s hereby disil/issedE N K Agafwal lodge f/er/ /