-^ ~~\ c^ SSSItgsgSBs? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / WRIT PETITION N0. ^^SC/2004 PETITIONER DEF/RESP N0.1 ^\/^ I ^">f^ ^t1 C7. »<s' ^ y ^r- /y./v '^/(^ :"0 .^ \ .^ ^Smt. Lili Kujur, aged about 40 years, widow of Late Arun Kujur, occupation - Suspended Supervisor, Mahila Bal Vikas, permanent resident of village - Girang, Post Office Gholang, Tah. And Distt. Jashpur (C.G) Presently office address - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Office Bageecha, Post Bageecha, Distt. Jashpur. VERSUS RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT DEF N0.2 ^RESPONDENT 1< Munkuram Sarthi, s/o Late S.R. Sarthi, aged about 58 years, occupation Service, Collector Jashpur, resident of village Jatari and Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tah. And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Presently retired) Udairam Thawayeet, son of B.R. Thawayeet, aged about 62 years, Printer & Editor, through : Raigarh Ofset Printers, Ramleela Maidan, Raigarh (C.G.) Hemant Thawayeet, son of Udairam Thawayeet, aged about 30 years, Editor , Dainik Keloprawah, Ramle^la Maidan, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) XI-HG—78 'SrcT •^WWCf, ®tll<H'l<c,fS|(yll<-ltj,< ...S^M.^.^ ;; ;3n^T:'^i Ri-d<!h liiiBqisn^f a>*i sn^rira^i' (<idi'l's)<cf)> ^<ITW(lte 3I!^I 13-1-2005 Smt. Hamidq Siddique, the plairttiff before the trial cfti-4^41 v\ '^i^f^i ^ '^^'^^^ ^; affiiii 3T(i?i ' ', -On dmention being ma^le, the ma+ter isjxikenup for hearing. ^ounsel for the petitioner. Shri P. 5. Koshy,eoun^el takes notice for respondent No.l. who is •ourt. I hcwe heard lear'ned c^unssl for the parties. Learned couhsel for ra of the writ petition and he Therefore, ledrned counselj petitionenherein, who is The1 adopting the delaying tactics of the writteh statement ii petition be dis^osed of and h^ is ready tg argue the case. 1-earned' counsel for spondent No.l does not want to file repiy wants to argue the matter on its merit. -for respondent No.l oirgued thdt "Hie defendant No.l before the trial Court/ is dnd by Jnstant application for amendmenl' 1 ^ one of such step therefore, thjs wri't the petitioner submittecii-t-hat-th^ amendmenjt- soi-ight by ^•1+ie p^titiqner herein was consequen'tiat Ito lihel re9istration ofthe crimirio^ case based on the. ccimplain^ of .ti'iei petitioner; andj such a plea registratipnofjthe crimingJc^seBgainst respondent No.Il. TJheiordeirfof^ could not have been takeri ilsefore lih^i the triat £ourtis pevyer'ss, ^S ft has been;mentiQn6din,th^jmpugne<| order that amendment which taken in par^lfi (md^'18]0^,the ,wdtten st^^ the 'defendant.is seeKmQ^MS c^KgaSy^eei^ conmspy TO *n£> FS^^I-'J/' TnffTffi-T^ iSft S«*I VF| ^^ "H l^i , VWf .1t petiAisn^di^sa|n(^;s^^oL|t)4 :.l'; 'slli 's' IKIII9 Wi ^^'^^Rnera, '^flWfg', •F^IRTy •4f*iuAtUAiu,«. ^ <»ii<iii;i<ii't*iiq<'?fifft%t(ht^l' •^aiiln. ailowed and the;petitionermc4'be allowed to amend the written f' • -: - . ^ • ''"'.• /: •• ^ ' li statement.' ^ . 1::1/;1' . ' ' • ' ; ' :: ' ':,;;; i; On theother hand, Mr.>K<|shy, while suppor-ting the order of ftle triat Court, sybmitted that th^ impugned order in question is not peryerse OP contpary to the^ftled principles of law, therefore, this Court should ndt;;inter'fere yuitt^ the order passed by the' tr'ial Coyrt under Article 227of tlie Constjtution of India. Undef Arti6le,2Z7 of the Constitution 6f India the Hjgh Court is entitled to interfere with the order of the'Court belaw ^here the Court balow has passed the, prder having no juriscHction CIP ^ie Court below has failerf to exercjse 1 the jur'isdiction so, vested or acted in exercis® of its jurisdictipn illegally.or with mcrterialjrregula^it/. Ff.the oryer'impugned is a toexist.thensamewillbefaflur^pfthejustice. • In view of :the ahove,. if ^ve: look into the facts of the Ipresen;)- co.se., respondent ;No.l has ^filed the suit against the peti'tiQrier herejn for defamation aml compen^ib^ of fts.5 iacs on the ground thatsome false aliegationsiare levelled ag^iinst the petjtioner/plaintifflcM'icliSanne: were published in +he paper-. Wijitten stcrtement has alreddY bejen filed^ 1 " ^. - : •' .;'- 1 '• ^!'.;.' ^ .••: . •.'•I .;.. '. ,^ ' -^ • . 1 11.^ L l';i:'!'..:;':i.: During the pendency of the s4it on the' complaint of the 'pe'titiBnecl hereina.^iminal^casebearing ^0.113/2004 under ?&ctiws ^6 [<m<l^ ':',?:.T;li;'':! :>^'wl;s 342'offhe,IP.C.lTOS^beenregfs|%redon 6-5-2004. B^^^^W '•[:^' '^"-}'i \T^. -3-S'I G;:PRJ—FS/350—I2/2 Herein wahts -fo raise the plea regarding regis-ti^i'iionsoy ^^•^Tqm^^^N^'-'^iiwp: —3- ^i^iw.ft^ frii*«?i^f^^ '^T(^R ^ siRpt3n^i—,.' criminal case against respond^it No.l raising the same as a defence;to| tiie petitibrier's clcurn based p|i the petitioners' plaint. The trial Courtl has rejected the amendment defenclgnt'wcuits to tnke by •J'le; amendment has already i?een taken. jn STatement. , 18 ofihe. written steitemen'K revsals that paras-16 and 18:of the writfen Perusal of ^paras, 16 und no such •^lea 'r^garding reg|stration of the criminal^^ c^ respondenti No.1 herein and piaintiff in that suit has been raised in the written : stutement. The t^st for deciding the applicdtion for arriendmeHt of the pleodings ujider Qrder 6 Rulel.7 of the G.P.C. is thal' the Court mtiy at ahy stage alter or amend his pleddings the purpose of' deteFmining! tl stdtement iithe t'petitjbner he therefore, in mylopinion, this 4 on the ground that the plea which fhe |of the' proeeedingis allow _either par-ty t6 ^ Stich- manner and on 'such •terms^ as may be just, and ail such amendmejits shall be made as rnoy be necessary for je real questions ih controversy'be't'ween the parties.' Inf'rtie present c^ise by tbe instant amendment of^wril-fen 'ei wants tb .raise thel defence^agciif'ist cldim of.the p^titipner, thjere^fore, the amenclment in::question .gQes^tB the root^py the suit. Thgre^fpre, prder impugnedl is per'ver^e ^bejng based on) the ground whjcf'i |s nof ^xisting in the. iWpitlren stlaiternefif^ rit petition cleseryes -fo be alloweicf. {•S; fii 'Gt. T'RJ—FS/350—12/2000—50.000 Barve ^ In the result, fhe writ is set aside. The trial Cou petitionis altowed and theimpugned order' "t is directeS to proceed further; jn the; matter in dccprdance with \a^t. However, as argyed by learned counsel. for respondent Np.l, the tri^l Court shouid try.to expedite the trial in accordoince wi'i+i iaw; In view of this or|der; M.(W.)P. No.5306/2004 and' l.A. No.9978/2004 stondldispose^l of. Par'ties.areentitledfosj certified copy of this ordsr. ^a7-- L.C. Bhadoo Judge •"?.'^:..K. U;['PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000.