gMGLE Rg§§£g C“ /‘/dq’@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT pETrrION !Art. 227) No. Mi} OF 201 1 E WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA L 4, Am m :’“ A :L i ‘ ; . _ j S PETITIONER/ DEFENDANT Dr. Harish Grover, S /o Amarnath Grover, aged about 62 years, R/o Baldeobagh, Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon (CG). tidxeixrwv-V“ “' " Versus RESPONDENT[ PLAINTIFF /" Vijay Singh Parihar, S/o Lotan Singh Parihar, R/o ‘ Mathpara, Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon (CG). HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 147 of2011 PETITIONER Defendant l Dr. Harish Grover VERsvs I Vijay Singh Parihar ‘ RESPONDENTS Plaintm‘ EQI PETITION UNDER gTICLE 2z7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri BD Guru, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21.02.201 l) Legality and propriety of order dated 17.09.2010, passed by the Ilnd Civil Judge Class II, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 68-A/09, whereby the petitioner’s/defendant’s consequential amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed, is under assail in the instant petition. The petitioner/defendant amended his written statement. The respondent/plaintim in tum, also amended plaint and pleaded some facts. Inconsequenee thereof; application to amend the written statement was tiled by the petitioner and the same was disallowed by the trial court. Hence this petition. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. Law is well settled, if plaint is amended, it would be necessary for the defendant to amen his written statement in order to controvert d §¢w arp5 the plea raised in the plaint by way of amendmant, therefore, the order of trial court rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment is not in accordance with law. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order impugned dated 17.09.2010, passed by trial court deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The petitioner’s amendment application is allowed. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to amend his written statement accordingly and then to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 6. Since the matter is old, it is expected that the trial court shall decide the case expeditiously preferably within a period of one year. 7. Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sdl- N,K, Agrawal Judge Sahu lanai