t HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B!LASPUR RIT PETITION (227) NO. 4590 éF 2008 v 1 l g § 1 ‘ 1 I l ‘ PPF Sattat Jajam S/o Gulam Ja}am aged abou 50 years Occu ation Motorcycle Mechamc, R/o Suhawa 1 howk Dhamtan Tahss Dhamtari, District Dhamtarif(CG) Distnt Ralpur (CG) Presently (Power of Attorney Hotder Raman Ah and \MII owner Sultan All) E‘r‘rrIoNERI LAINTIF r i i t Versus i ayaram Slo Jaturam aged aout 40 years R!o Makeshwar Ward Amapara Dhamtan, Tahsrl Dhamtarl District Rarpur (CG) PreSently District Dhamtari (CG) . lyaram S/o Jaturam aged about35 years R/o Ghasr Ward Amapara Dhamian Tahsrl Dhamtan District Rarpur (CG) Presently District Dhammri (CG) ' Milan Slo Late Pannalal aged about 5 years, Occupation Labour R/o Ghasr Ward Amapara Dhamtarl Tahsrl Dhamtan District ’alpur (CG), Presentty Drstnct Dham‘an ( 2 R CG) Parsadl S/o Late Pannalal aged about 28 ears Occupation Labour, R/o Ghasr Ward mapara Dhamtari Tahsil Dhamtari District A f Raipur (CG) Presently District Dhamtan (CG) Goburu S/o Late Pannalat aged about 30 years Occupation Labour Rio Ghasi Ward Amapara Dhamtari Tahsil Dhamtari Distric Raipur (CG) Presently Distnct Dhamtari (CG) ,, I i (Writ petition under Article 227 of the'Constitution of india) ' § I ES’PONDENTSI v DENDANTs Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. resent: Shri lndrasen Sahu, 'counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER . ~ (Passed on this 25“; day of August 2008) eing aggrieved by the order dated 10-7-2008 (Annexure—P/1)‘l passed by the Second CM! Judge Glass-l Dhamtari in oiwl suit Noi 201-A/1998 whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint under Order Vl Rule 17 of the Code of CiVil Procedure 1908 (for short the CPC) was rejected the petitioner/plaintiff t has fled this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution l W t l M b ' S \ , y t ,‘ § R EF P B ‘ of ndia ’ ' 2)‘. i The Indrsputable facts In nutshelt as prOJected by the petrtroner/ plar itrff are that the petrtroner/plamtrff tiled a surt for possessron m the Court of Crvrl Judge Class-I Dhamtan berng crvrl surt No 201-Al1998 on 19-10 1993 (Annexure-Plz) The respondents/defendants frled wrltten statements on 24-8-2000 (Annexule-P/3) & 30-6-2000 (AnnexureuP/4) Thereafter the petrironerlplarntrff fted an app Icatron under Order VI Rule 17 lof the CPC on 10-3-2008 (Annexure-Pl5) for makrng certam . amendments In para 2 of the plamt l 3) The learned Crvrl Judge atter havmg examined the case held that the petrtroneriplamtrff knew about the fact of the proposed amendment smce 24-3-1993 re before tiling of the surt The trral has commenced Issues j ' have been ftamed and the matter was ftxed for exammmg of the Wttnesses The applrcatron for amendment was fled wrth the purpose to delay the tnal ' of the suit 4)f i Shn Sahu, Ieamed counsel appearing for the pettttoner/plamtiff would submrt that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of r ' l Ithe plamt Learned counsel further submtts that the proposed amendment rs to ‘further strengthen the case of the petrtroner/ptamtrff 5) 3 l have heardvlearned counsel appearing for the petitionerlplaintiff,. perused the pleadings and thedocuments appended thereto. Order Vl Rule 17 of the CPC 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 reai questions m controversy between the parties ,L/ - r l Provrded that no application for amendment snarl; be arrowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court-comes to the conclusion that in, spite of due diligenoe, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of triat ” 6) ' Provrso to Rule 17 of the CFC makes it clear that no application for 3 ( amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusron that rn sprte of due diligence the party could i not hav raised te matr befoe the commencent o rial e h te r me f t. m 7) dmittedly, in the present caselthe peti ionerlplaintiff» was well aware abOtElt the-facts of the probosed améndrllent on 24-3-1993. much prior to mihé of the civil suit on 19-104 993. At this rage, permitling amendment would céuse prejudice to the’oarties end unnecessary delay the pending trial bf the Case. l 8) i This court in exercise of itssupervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 ofitlilie Constitution of lndia 'should refrain itSelf from interferingu with’the ordeir passed by the court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegfality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is givrit large on the face of the record, which is not inrthe presentcase. 9) : in view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed at the j motion stage itself. ‘1'0)%5 Consequently, l.A;No.1l2008 for grant‘of ad-interim relief stands ; erséosed or. -- Sd/- ish'K. Anih‘otri ‘t g f A