<»-. nmiE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTitSGARH BILASPUR (C.G) W.P. (2271N0. /8-9/2010 SINSIE PETITIONER PLAINTIFF ^^- ^^$s>;- .,<•' 't^""' .A^S^tr ^!{M^>' RESPONDENTg DEFENDENT MoorarkaAgencieSBilaspur Propritor Vijay MOorarka Aged 71 S/o Badri Naraya Moorarka R/o in frontofKali Mandir TeUpara Road Bilaspur Tah. & DisttBilaspurC.G. VERSUS 'Mittal Medical Steore Vishrampur Pro, Suresh Mittal aged 49 Year S/o, Omprakash Mittal R/OjVishrampurTah. Si-u-ajpur Distt.Sarguja C.G. WRIT PETlTION^NDEaRtARnCiLE 227 OF 'I'HE CONSYITUTION OF INDIA HIGH GOURTOFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Sindle Bench: Hon'ble ShriJustice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition^2271 ^to.189 of2010 versus Moorarka Agencies Bilaspur MittalMecliisa|St<?reVishrampur Present: Shri Radhe Shyam Gupta,counsel forthe petitioner. Writ Petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitutionof India ORDER (Passed on 14th January, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. The learned trial Court has rejected the plpintjffs appljeations under Order 6 Rule 17 oftheCodeof CMI Procedure and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Proeedure on the ground that the evidence in the suit has already commenced, plaintjff has already closed his evidence and it is fixed for recording evidence of the defendant. At this stage, the applicatibns have been mOYecj to plead and implead one Suresh Mittal as proprietor pf the Mittal Msdical Stores. The learned trial Court has observed that it cannot be saidthat the plaintiff was not aware ofthis fact at thetime of filing ofthesuit, since, according to the plaintiff, he has been transacting with the defendant for last so many years. 3. The reasoning assigned by the leamed trial Court does notisuffer from any error or perversity, InWdjftbal andoiffiwsvs.PadmaSsiffia •^- "13~ '•< ^Gopal -2-. andanoffter, (2009)2 SCC 409, the Hon'ble Sypreme Cpurt has held that before allowing the amendment after commehcement of trial, the Court should be satisfied that in spite 6f due diligesnce, the party could not introduce amendment before commencement oftrial. 4. This Court does riot find any ground for interference withthe impugned orderdated 24-11-2009 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-1, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.35-8/2009 (Annexure P-1). The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itsetf. Sd//- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ES..