BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BTLASPUR wRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. #W/m’ PETITIONER z r Radheshyam AgrawaL S/o. Shri Kalyan PLAINTIFF Prasad Agrawal, aged about 72 years, Rlo. Budhapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS /:1. Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Raipur Sikh Council, Raipur (C.G.) Through : Gurmit Singh Saini, S/o. Late Preetam Singh Saini, R/o. Near Gurudwara, Shyam-nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). The St‘ate of Chhattisgarh, Through : Coiiector, Raipur (C.G.) HIGH CGURT OF CIH-IATTISGM AT BILAS?UR W.P. (227; NO. 134 QF 2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Sin e Bench: ’Hon'ble Shri N.K. J. Present : Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for respondent No. 1. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th day of April, 2011) The instant petition calls in question the legality and propn‘ety of the order dated 24—01-2008 passed by Sixth Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur in Civil Suit No.2- A/2005 whereby the petitioner’s application for amendment was dismissed on the ground that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The plamtilr idstit‘iitéd a suit for decimation of his title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over‘ the suit property. Temporary injunction was also granted in i { plaintiff’s favour. According to plaintih‘, he was l dispossessed by the defendant during pendency of the suit on 05-03-2005. Plaintin' moved an application for amendment of plaint to claim relief of possession against the defendants. The above application was dismissed by the Trial Court, as according to Trial Court it will change the nature of the suit. PETITIONER/ : Radheshyam Agrawal PLAINTIFF Versus RESPONDENTSI : Gurudwara Prabandhak DEFENDANTS Committee and another. @ 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 5. According to plaintiff, he has been dispossessed by the defendant during pendency of the suit i.e. on 05—03- 2005. Based on above subsequent event, the amendment was sought claiming relief of possession. In no way it will change the nature of the suit rather it was necessary for the plaintih‘ to propose above amendment for claiming relief of possession. The defendant is always at liberty to rebut the above plea by way of consequential amendment showing he is in possession of the suit property since inception and not from the date as alleged. 6. In the light of above discussion, the order impugned is not sustainable in law, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. Plaintifs application for amendment is allowed. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to amend his plaint and also permit the defendant for consequential amendment in the written statement and thereafter, after naming additional issues, if any, proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law, on its own merits. F Sd/- ‘\ N.K. Agrawal Judge